=    ( 


l"^^ 


'^s]]]wm^^     "V/^aaAiNii  3\v^^       ^^o 


IV 


mo/-^ 


"'JCJ.\(;>.I  iW"*- 


"oiiji  ivj  i\i 


"aujiivj  jvi  ■ 


J-^IJJ.^VbUI 


^'^HiAiN.NWV 


^tW 


.C' 


\  <• 


1    ^^ 


v:'        y< 


OF  CALIFO/?;^. 


% 


^'ommni'^      '-^oxwrnwi^ 


j^lllBRARYC/: 


>i 


^s^l•LIBRARYy}/ ,         ^vM 


IZ 


%0JIW3J0>-^^ 


s  '^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


.^.OF-rAIIFOf 


-^c^AHvaan-^^^        ^fiuoNvsoi^^^     '^y/smm 


.muvr.nfr/  ^^i:     -v\t 


oylOSANf.nrr. 


:^ 


AINiTJWV 


'^<i/ojnv3jo' 


.!,nF-rAiiFn,v. 


<ril30N\' 


AyUlifJiVFR.V// 


.K-'invAMCfly^r 


mi\^       ^'^0. 


r< 


'"^Ok 


^P^     ^  Cir      J*^^-K, 


http://www.archive.org/details/briefnarrativeofOOstab 


'■^iirjiVv'sor 


//A 


_V 


^V' 


..vlOSANCtlfX^ 


O         J- 

NVSOV^        %a3AINa-3WV 


^<?Aavaaiii^ 


^^oxwrnu"^' 


o 


IRARYOr         ^>nMIBRARYQc. 


!l4 

nvj-jo^" 


IVFRV/, 


/  o 


o  , 


-< 


^^^' 


AllFOff/j^       ^OFCAlIF0/?4^ 


Hfin-AS^       >&A}iVHflnA\'^ 


..^ 


nf  rAHPf 


^§      1 


NIVtRS//, 


vvlOSANCElfXy 

o 


\^Hir 


i?  1 


%a3AINn3V\v 


.^W^UNIVERS/A        ^lOSANCEl 

T"        O 


,^WE•lINIVER5•/A.        vvlOSANCE 


iN^SO\-^^'        %iijAINiV 


;RARYQr^       .V 


yvi 


m 


IVJJO"^       ^^OJIIVJJO-^ 


MIFO/?^       ^OFCAMFO,'!',;, 


^IJDNVSOl^ 

^^\\E•l'^'IVFR%        ^vinSANCFlff^ 


■^y. 


/aaiH^     "^(JAMvaaiH^"^        ■^riijoNYsov'^      '^^/smmi^ 


v^ 


,9/:         ^^^llIBRAR^ 


^^OFrAIIFO/?^;^^        ^OFCAUFf 


9^ 


;-  c? 


^       y<. 


>&Aava9iH^      ^<?Aiivaaii 


NIVERV/. 


'^ 


i  =(qJ^ 


INV-Sm^        '^'^^ii\\^i\i\^ 


->?• 


,\WEUNIVERI/^        ^v 


■■J  IJ  J.M     NU  I 


NIVERS/A 


,,        ^lOSANCElfj-^, 


^iA^f^y<J^:'i^ 


^^c/    ^^tA^e^T) 


OVERLOOKED  PAGES 


or 


REAPER  HISTORY 


Chicago,  Illinois,  1897 


PREFACE. 


Cms  book  is  a  republication  of  three  pamphlets,  printed  as 
their  respective  title  pages  show.  While  the  name  of  the 
writer  is  not  given  therein,  it  is  known  that  they  were  from  the 
pen  of  Edward  Stabler,  of  Sandy  Springs,  Md.,  Postmaster  of 
that  place  from  Jackson's  time  until  his  death,  a  few  years 
since.  They  were  given  by  Mr.  Stabler  to  one  of  his  particular 
friends,  Mr.  R.  D.  0.  Smith,  then  and  now  a  prominent  patent 
lawyer.  Mr.  Stabler,  he  informs  us,  was  a  man  of  great  skill 
as  a  mechanic,  and  was  particularly  noted  for  his  ability  as  a 
die  sinker^  long  considered  to  be  the  best  in  the  United  States. 
He  made  many  government  seals.  The  seal  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution  is  exceptionally  fine.  He  was  also  a  famous  rifle 
shot,  but  wasted  no  powder  on  small  game;  buffalo  and  bear 
hunting  being  his  recreation  until  the  time  of  his  death,  which 
occurred  about  ten  years  ago.  That  he  was  a  man  of  ability 
is  shown  by  the  review  which  follows. 

This  republication  is  undertaken  in  order  to  preserve  the 
historical  facts  contained  (with  which  we  have  long  been 
familiar )  as  the  single  copy  of  each,  now  before  us,  is  thought 

to  be  the  only  one  in  existence. 

J.  Russell  Parsons. 

Lewis  Miller. 

John  F.  Steward. 

Chicago,  Illinois,  February,  1897. 


A  BRIEF  NARRATIVE 


OF  THli 


INVENTION 


OF 


Reaping  Machines; 

AND  AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE 

CLAIMS    FOR    PRIORITY    OF    INVENTION: 

BY  A  MARYLAND  FARMER  AND  MACHINIST 


ALSO  A  SHORT  APPENDIX, 


CONSISTING    OF 


ENOLISH     PUBLICATIONS, 


AS   TO  THE 


Operation  and  Success  of  Reaping  Machines 

IN     ENQLAND, 
IN  THE  YEARS  1851,  18S2  and  18S3. 


BALTIMORE: 
FROM  THE  PRESS  OF  MILLS  &  COX, 

(OFFICE     OF     THE     "AMERICAN     FARMER,") 

No.  128  Baltimore  street. 

1854. 

RerrinleJ  by  the  W.  B.  CON  KEY  COMPANY 
1897. 


zx\ 


in 


o 
o 

z 

3 

< 


A    BRIEF    NARRATIVE 


OF    THE 


INVENTION  OF  REAPING  MftCHINES, 

AND  AN   EXAMINATION  OF  THE  CLAIMS  FOR   PRIORITY  OF  INVENTION. 


The  object  aimed  at  in  this  examination,  is  to  ascertain  as  far  as  relia- 
ble evidence  within  reach  will  establish  the  fact — and  before  the  evidence 
may  be  lost — to  whom  belongs  the  credit  of  first  rendering  the  Reap- 
ing  and  Mowing  Machine  a  practical  and  available  implement  to  the 
American  farmer;  not  who  theoyctically  i/i7'c?ited  tx.  machine  for  the  pur- 
pose, that  may  have  worked  an  hour  only,  and  very  imperfectly  for 
that  short  period,  and  was  then  laid  aside;  but  who  rendered  it  an 
operating  and  efficient  machine  that  was  proved  by  successive  years 
in  the  harvest  field,  capable  of  doing  its  work,  and  doing  it  well;  better 
than  either  the  scythe  or  cradle. 

The  object  is  not  to  detract  from  the  merits  fairly  claimed  by  any 
inventor;  but  it  is  to  examine  into  some  of  the  rival  claims,  furnish 
the  evidence  that  has  satisfied  our  own  minds,  and  leave  it  for  others 
to  judge  for  themselves.  We  would  not  intentionally  deprive  an 
inventor  of  his  often  dearly  bought  and  hard-earned  fame — the  crea- 
tion of  his  own  genius — for  it  is  more  prized  than  even  fine  gold  by 
many.  But  it  is  equally  just  that  merit  should  be  acknowledged,  and 
the  meed  of  praise  awarded,  where  it  is  honestly  and  fairly  due;  and 
to  this  end,  we  propose  and  intend  to  examine  into  the  evidence 
closely  and  critically.  It  may  also  be  right  to  remark  that  we  have 
no  private  or  pecuniary  interest  whatever,  in  these,  or  any  other  patent 
claims. 

As  to  the  theoretical  portion  of  the  business,  the  enquiry  might  be 
greatly  extended;  indeed  for  past  centuries,  as  we  have  imperfect 
accounts  of  Reaping  Machines  being  used  by  the  Romans.  If  the 
ancients  were  successful  in  making  a  practical  implement  for  Reaping, 
by  horse,  or  ox  power,  as  some  ancient  writers  assert,  we  certainly 
have  no  correct  and  reliable  account  of  a  machine  that  would  be  con- 
sidered efficient  or  useful  at  the  present  day;  a  machine  to  save  or  tear 
off  the  heads  only — as  described  by  Pliny  and  Palladius — would  more 
properly  be  termed  a  gathering  machine,  and  not  at  all  suited  to  the 
wants  and  habits  of  modern  farmers. 

It  was  not  until  near  the  close  of  the  past,  and  within  the  present 
century,  so  far  as  we  can  learn,  that  the  subject  again  claimed  much 
attention  of  the   inventive  talent  of  either  this,  or  foreign  countries. 

3 


44G154 


4  BRIEF    NAKRATIVE   OF   THE 

Of  some  half  a  dozen  or  more  attempts  made  in  Great  Britain,  and 
recorded  in  Loudon's  Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture,  the  Edinburg 
Encyclopedia,  and  other  similar  works,  all,  or  nearly  all,  relied  cither 
upon  scythes  or  cutters,  with  a  rotary  motion,  or  vibrating  shears. 
And  although  there  was  "  go  ahead  "  about  them  in  one  sense  of  the 
term,  as  it  was  intended  for  the  "  cart  to  go  before  the  horse,"  none  of 
them  appeared  to  have  gained,  or  certainly  not  long  retained,  the  con- 
fidence of  the  farmers;  for  at  the  exhibition  of  the  "World's  Fair  in 
London,"  tiie  whole  Kingdom  could  not  raise  a  Reaping  Machine; — a 
practical  implement  which  was  considered  worth  using  and  exhibiting. 

That  the  idea  was  obsolete  there,  and  had  been  unsuccessful,  is 
clearly  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  English  journals  and  writers  of  that 
period,  without  a  single  exception,  spoke  of  the  American  Reapers — 
after  the  trials! — as  "completely  successful"— "  taking  every  one  by 
surprise  " — "  their  reaping  machines  have  astonished  our  agriculturists" 
— "  few  subjects  have  created  a  greater  sensation  in  the  agricultural 
world  than  the  recent  introduction  into  the  country  of  the  reaping 
machines" — the  "  curiosity  of  the  crowd  was  irrepressible  to  witness 
such  a  novelty,  even  to  stopping  the  machine,  and  trampling  the  grain 
under  foot,"  &c.,  &c. — Much  more  and  similar  evidence  is  at  hand;  but 
better  need  not  be  produced  to  prove  the  entire  failure  of  reaping 
machines  in  Great  Britain,  as  late  as  1851.  We  would  also  refer  the 
curious  to  Rees'  Cyclopedia,  for  a  very  brief  account  of  what  had  been 
effected;— a  few  paragraphs  only  are  written  on  reaping  machines,  but 
several  pages  are  compiled  as  to  the  use  of  the  scythe,  sickle  or  reap 
hook,  and  reaping yi?r/C'.  The  Doctor  refers  to  Plunknett's  Machine  by 
name,  as  being  "  somewhat  on  a  new  principle,  the  horse  drawing  the 
machine  instead  of  pushing  it  forward  as  was  the  old  mode  of  applying 
the  power."  The  machine  is  fully  represented  in  the  Farmers'  Dic- 
tionary; and  he  winds  up  the  account  as  follows:  "  But  the  success 
with  which  they  have  been  attended,  has  hitherto  been  far  from  com- 
plete;" again,  "  Other  machines  of  this  kind  have  still  more  lately  been 
invented  by  other  persons  [meaning  of  course  his  own  countrymen] 
but  without  answering  the  purpose  in  that  full  and  complete  manner 
which  is  necessary  in  this  sort  of  work." 

The  Doctor  undertakes  to  tell  us  wJiat  is  wanted,  but  fails  entirely 
to  inform  his  readers  how  to  do  it.  That  John  Bull  had  not  clone  it  is 
clearly  established;  but  Brother  Jonathan,  the  "  Live  Yankee,"  as  John 
calls  his  cousin,  has  solved  the  problem;  and  the  solution  is  so  simple, 
when  you  know  how  to  do  it!  that  it  is  marvclously  strange  no  one  for 
centuries  had  before  struck  upon  the  right  key. 

Philip  Pusey,  Plsq.,  M.  P.  and  F.  R.  S. — the  chief  manager  of  the 
London  Exhibition — admits  the  failure.-though  apparently  reluctantly; 
but  the  source  of  his 'information,  in  writing  about  the  American 
machines  was  interested  and  defective;  and  when  he  again  writes  on 
this  subject  he  will  be  better  informed.  He  says:  "  At  the  opening  of 
this  century  it  was  thought  that  a  successful  reaping  machine  had  been 
invented,  and  a  rev\'ard  had  been  voted  by  Parliament  to  its  author. 
The  machine  was  employed  here  and  abroad,  but  from  its  intricacy, 


INVENTION    Ol-     KEAl'lNG    MACHINKS. 


fell  into  disuse.  Another  has  been  lately  devised  in  one  of  our  Colo- 
nies, which  cuts  off  the  heads  of  the  corn,  but  leaves  the  straw  stand- 
ing, a  fatal  defect  in  an  old  settled  country,  where  the  growth  of  corn 
is  forced  by  the  application  of  dung.  Our  farmers  may  well,  therefore, 
have  been  astonished  by  an  American  implement  which  not  only  reaped 
the  wheat,  but  performed  the  work  with  the  neatness  and  certainty  of  an 
old  and  perfect  machine.  Its  novelty  of  action  reminded  one  of  see- 
ing the  first  engine  run  on  the  Liverpool  and  Manchester  railway  in 
i8^;o.  Its  perfection  depended  on  its  being  new  only  in  I'Lngland;  but 
in  America  the  result  of  repeated  disappointments  and  untired  perse- 
verance, &c." 

We  propose  to  prove,  and  by  better  evidence,  and  disinterested  too, 
than  he  then  had,  that  in  1833,  near  the  date  of  "  the  first  engine  run  on 
the  Liverpool  and  JNIanchester  railway  in  1830."  the  American  machine 
cut  the  "  corn  "  just  as  perfectly,  with  equal  "  neatness  and  certainty  " 
as  did  the  "  Novelty"  or  "  Rocket  "  pass  over  the  Liverpool  and  Man- 
chester railway.  We  shall  again  recur  to  English  authority.  John  Bull 
is  a  right  lionest  and  clever  old  gentleman  in  the  main ;  but  he  is  rather 
prone  to  claim  what  he  has  no  title  for — inventions, as  well  as  territory. 
W'e  are  willing  to  give  him  what  he  can  show  a  clear  deed  for,  but  no 
more.  He  beat  us  by  one  year  only  in  the  Locomotive;  but  we  fairly 
beat  him  eighteen  or  twenty  in  the  Reaping  Machine;  and  yet  some 
of  his  wTiters  contend  to  this  day  that  we  ''pirated"  from  Bell  and 
other  English  in\entors  all  we  know! 

The  excitement  and  sensation  thus  produced  by  the  American 
Reapers,  caused  renewed  efforts  on  the  part  of  English  inventors; 
some  who  had  near  a  quarter  of  a  century  previously,  been  endeavor- 
ing to  effect  this  "  great  desideratum,"  to  use  an  English  editorial:  and 
the  most  conspicuous  of  these  was  one  invented  by  the  Rev.  Patrick 
Bell,  of  Scotland.  Of  the  half  a  score  or  more  and  previous  inventors 
in  Great  Britain— Boyce,  Plunknett,  Gladstone  of  Castle  Douglass, 
Salmon  of  Waburn,  Smith  of  Deanston  in  Perthshire,  &c.,  &c.— none 
were  waked  up  from  their  Rip  Van  Winkle  slumbers;  or  if  they  were, 
the  world  is  not  advised  of  it.  They  all  used  revolving  scythes,  revolv- 
ing cutters,  or  shears  instead.  Several  trials  were  made  with  Bell's  in 
1828  or  1829;  and  a  very  full  and  minute  description  with  plates,  was 
published  some  24  or  25  years  ago,  and  may  be  found  in  Loudon's 
^Encyclopedia  of  Agriculture. 

It  was,  however,  too  complicated,  too  cumbersome  and  expensive, 
performed  too  little  service,  and  required  too  much  tinkering  and 
repairs  to  be  viewed  as  a  practical  and  available  implement. — The 
English  farmer  found  the  sickle  or  reap  hook  preferable,  for  it  was 
every  where  resorted  to. — The  cutting  apparatus  of  Bell's  consisted  of 
shears,  one  half  stationary,  the  other  vibrating,  and  turning  on  the 
bolt  that  confined  them  to' the  iron  bar  which  extends  across  the  front 
of  the  frame.  The  vibrating  motion  was  given  by  connecting  the  back 
end  of  one  shear  to  a  bar— making  the  bolt  the  fulcrum— and  which 
was  attached  to  a  crank,  revolving  by  gear  to  the  driving  wheels. 

A  reel  was  used  to  gather  the  grain  to  the  shears,  and  adjustable, 


BRIEF    NARRATIVE    OF   THE 


back  and  forth,  and  hii^her  or  lower,  to  suit  the  height  of  the  grain.  A 
revolving  apron  delivered  the  grain  in  a  continuous  swath;  and  the 
team  was  attached  to  the  rear  of  the  machine,  pushing  it  through  the 
grain. 

We  have  been  more  minute  in  the  description  of  Bell's  machine, 
because  it  may  have  been  the  foundation  of  some  of  the  early,  and 
nearly  simultaneous  attempts  made  in  this  country.  In  fact  it  does 
not  admit  of  doubt  that  several  were  nearly  identical  with  Bell's  in  the 
use  of  the  shears  and  reel,  though  with  much  more  simple  gearing,  and 
in  the  general  arrangement.  Whether  they  were  original  inventions, 
cannot  be  ascertained.  In  this  country,  from  l8oo  to  1833  out  of 
some  1 5  or  20  patents  granted  for  "  cutting  grain  "  and  "  cutting  grass," 
only  four  appear  to  have  been  "restored";  i.  e.  technically  speaking, 
"  not  restored"  in  models  and  drawings  after  the  burning  of  the  Pat- 
ent Office  in  1836.  Many,  if  not  most  of  them,  were  probably  improve- 
ments in  the  grain  cradle,  and  mowing  scythe:  though  the  names  are 
preserved,  there  is  no  record  to  show  for  what  particulars  the  patents 
were  granted.  There  can  be  no  doubt  however,  that  the  inventors 
considered  them  valueless,  as  they  were  "  not  restored,"  though  Con- 
gress voted  large  sums  to  replace  the  burnt  models  and  drawings, 
without  any  expense  to  the  parties.  Of  those  restored  James  Ten 
Eyck's  patent  is  dated  1825.  Wm.  Manning's  in  1831,  Wm.  &  Thos. 
Schnebly's  in  1833,  and  Obed  Hussey's  also  in  1833. 

Jame's  Ten  Eyck  used  an  open  reel;  not  only  to  gather  the  grain, 
but  his  cutters  or  shears,  were  attached  to,  and  revolved  with  the  reel;— 
very  much,  if  not  exactly  on  the  principle  of  shearing  cloth. 

Wm.  Manning  used  another  form  of  cutters,  and  quite  different 
from  James  Ten  Eyck's— he  likewise  used  fingers  or  teeth  to  support 
the  grain  during  the  action  of  the  horizontal  cutters. 

Wm.  &  Thos.  Schnebly  of  Maryland,  also  used  the  reel,  with  shears 
as  cutters,  very  similar  to  Bell's. 

Abr'm  Randall  or  Rundell,  of  N.  Y.  (for  the  name  is  spelled  both 
ways),  was  another  of  the  early  inventor.^.  His  patent  of  1835  is  not 
restored,  though  it  is  stated  his  machine  was  experimented  with  as 
early  as  1833  or  1834.  He  also  used  the  reel,  and  his  cutters,  it  is  said, 
were  similar  to  Bell's — using  shears. 

T.  D.  Burrall,  of  N.  Y.  was  also  one  of  the  early  inventors,  about 
1832  or  1833,  but  we  believe  professedly  after  Bell's,  so  far  as  to  use  a 
reel  and  shears. 

None  of  these  machines  however,  Hussey's  excepted,  were  success- 
ful, or  were  used  any  length  of  time;  nor  is  it  necessary  here  to  refer 
particularly  to  other  attempts,  about  this  time,  or  indeed,  prior  to  this 
period,  for  they  were  equally  unsuccessful;  and  their  inventors  cannot 
claim  the  merit  of  doing  a  thing,  that  was  not  in  fact  performed— mak- 
ing an  efificient  and  successful  Reaper.  We  may  here  remark,  however, 
that  so  far  as  now  known,  no  machine  like  Bell's,  on  the  shear  or  scis- 
sor principle,  has  succeeded  in  this  country;  or  as  we  believe,  is  ever 
likely  to  succeed.  We  have  seen  a  number  by  different  inventors,  and 
all  have  failed  to  give  satisfaction.     They  may  work  well  for  a  very 


INVKNTION    UF    KKAl'lNC.    MA(  MINKS.  . 

brief  period  and  with  keen  cd^^cs;  but  as  they  become  dull,  the  shears 
are  forced  apart  by  the  straw  and  grass — particular  the  latter,  and  the 
machine  fails,  as  it  ine\itably  must  do,  in  its  allotted  duty:  and  for  very 
obvious  reasons.  If  the  shear  rivet  or  bolt  is  kept  ti^ht,  there  is  too 
much  friction;  if  loose  enou<^di  to  play  frecl\-,  it  is  too  loose  to  cut  well; 
and  lastly,  it  is  too  liable  to  wear  at  the  most  important  point  of  the  whole 
machine.  Durin^^  the  harvest  of  1853  in  Eni^dand,  every  effort  was 
made  to  uphold  Bell's  machine;  in  some  cases  prizes  were  awarded  to 
it,  though  evidently  partial;  for  in  the  face  of  these  awards,  some  who 
witnessed  the  trials,  and  had  used  Bell's  machines,  laid  them  aside  and 
purchased  Hussey's.  At  the  close  of  the  season,  as  we  learn  from 
reliable  authority,  even  the  engineers  who  oj^crated  Bell's,  frankly 
admitted  that  the  American  machine  as  exhibited  by  Hussey,  was  the 
better  implement,  owing  to  the  arrangement  of  the  guartlsand  knives; 
Bell's  required  so  much  tinkering,  that  several  machines  were  required 
to  cope  with  one  of  Hussey's.  At  the  recent  harvest,(  1854)  the  Mark 
Lane  Express  acknowledges  that  at  the  Royal  Agricultural  Societies' 
show  at  Lincoln,  Bell's  machine  was  "at  last  fairly  beaten"  by  Hus- 
sey's, including  McCormick's,  and  Hussey's  machine  received  the  prize 
over  all  others.  It  is  just,  however,  to  add,  that  far  as  we  consider 
Bell's  machine  behind  some  of  the  present  day,  yet  complex  and  cum- 
bersome as  it  was,  it  combined  more  of  the  essential  features  of  success, 
than  any  Reaper  that  preceded  it. 

We  now  come  to  1833,  the  date  of  Hussey's  patent;  and  to  1834, 
the  date  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  first  patent.  These  were  know  n  and 
admitted  by  all  to  have  been  the  rivals  for  poj)ular  favor  and  patron- 
age, from  about  the  year  1844  or  1845  to  the  opening  of  the  great 
Industrial  Exhibition  in  London,  in  1851.  To  these,  therefore,  the 
Enquiry  will  be  more  particularly  directed. 

We  must  however  refer  back  for  a  brief  period  to  183 1 ;  for  although 
C.  H.  McCormick's  first  patent  was  dated  in  1834,  yet  when  he  applied 
for  his  extension  in  1848,  he  alleged  that  hisim'cnticm  was  prior  to  Hus- 
sey's, as  he  had  invented  a  ntachine  in  1831,  two  years  before  the  date 
of  O.  Hussey's,  and  three  years  before  the  date  of  his  own  patent.  The 
evidence  produced  (ivrittcji  ^nd  preparcdhy  C.  H.  McCormick  and  now 
on  file  in  the  Patent  Office)  was  deemed  inadmissible  and  informal  by 
the  Board,  and  it  refused  to  go  on  with  the  examination  either  as  to 
priority  or  validity  of  invention  without  notice  to  Hussey — his  patent 
being  called  in  question  by  McCormick — to  be  present  when  the  dep- 
ositions were  taken. 

Before  however  receiving  the  official  notice,  he  was  called  on  by 
C.  H.  McCormick  in  Baltimore,  and  requested  to  sign  a  paper,  agreeing 
or  admitting,  diat  the  testimony  he  hatl  himself  prepared  should  be  con- 
sidered evidence — i.  e.  considered  formal;  alleging  that  it  would  save 
him  trouble  and  expense  in  going  to  Virginia.  This  was  declined  by 
Hussey  on  the  ground  that  he  might  thus  unwittingly  injure  himself: 
he  having  previously  applied  for  an  extension  of  his  own  Patent. 
Neither  was  he  then  aware  of  the  nature  of  this  evidence;  or  until  this 
interview,  was  he  advised  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  application  for 
cxiension. 


8  BRIKF    NARRATIVE   OF    THE 

Hussey  was  subsequently  duly  notified  by  order  of  the  Board  to  be 
present  at  taking  the  depositions  in  Augusta  County,  Virginia, — the 
Board  having  adjourned  three  weeks  for  that  purpose. 

Either  just  previous,  or  subsequent  to  these  proceedings  the  case 
was  referred  by  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  or  Board  of  extensions, 
to  Dr.  Page,  one  of  the  PLxaminers  of  the  office. 

His  report  is  as  follows — 

Patent  Office,  ) 

"Sir:  Jan.  22d,  1848.  \ 

In  compliance  with  your  requisition,  I  have  examined  the  patent 
of  Cyrus  H.  McCormick,  dated  31st  June,  1834,  and  found  that  the 
principal  features  embraced  in  said  patent,  viz:  the  cutting-knife  and 
mode  of  operating  it,  the  fingers  to  guide  the  grain  and  the  revolving 
rack  for  gathering  the  grain,  were  not  new  at  the  time  of  granting  said 
letters  patent. 

The  knife-fingers  and  general  arrangements  and  operation  of  the 
Cutting  apparatus  are  found  in  the  reaping  machine  of  O.  Hussey, 
patented  31st  Dec.    1 833. 

The  re\olving  rack  presents  novelty  chiefly  in  form,  as  its  opera- 
tion is  similar  to  the  revolving  frame  of  James  Ten  P^yck,  patented  2nd 
November    1825.  Respectfully  submitted, 

Chas.  G.  Page,  Examiner." 
Hon.  Edmund  Burke,  Com'r.of  Patents. 

As  some  ha\'e  enquired,  and  others  may  enquire,  why  a  patent 
should  issue  under  these  circumstances,  we  reply,  that  previous  to  1836 
but  little,  if  any  examination  was  made  as  to  priority  of  inventions,  or 
into  preceding  Patents;  the  applicant  made  oath  as  to  his  invention, 
and  the  patent  was  issued  as  a  matter  of  course.  And  as  another  mat- 
ter of  course,  if  the  rival  interests  clashed,  litigation  was  the  result: — 
the  Courts  and  juries  often  decided  what  they  little  understood,  and 
at  times  not  at  all,  after  the  pleading  of  well  fee'd  lawyers:  a  pretty 
fair  illustration  of  the  fable  of  the  boys  and  frogs:  it  may  be  fun  for 
the  lawyers  but  it  is  de^^th  to  the  hopes  of  many  a  poor  patentee.  We 
are  however  pleased  to  perceive  a  disposition  manifested  by  the 
courts  to  sustain  patents;  even  if  occasionally  an  unjust  claim  is  rec- 
ognized as  a  valid  one,  it  is  better,  according  to  the  legal  and  moral 
maxim,  that  half  a  dozen  rogues  should  escape  punishment  for  a  time, 
than  that  one  innocent  person  should  be  unjustly  convicted:  the  rogue 
is  almost  certain  to  be  caught  in  the  end,  and  truth  will  ultimately 
triumph. 

This  testimony  was  taken  in  due  form  at  Steele's  Tavern,  Augusta 
County,  Va.,  McCormick  and  Hussey  both  being  present.  It  is  too 
voluminous  to  copy  entire,  but  we  will  refer  briefly  to  each,  having 
read  them  carefully,  and  obtained  certified  copies  of  all,  from  the 
Patent  office. 

Dr.  N.  M.  Mitt — testified  to  a  reaping  machine  being  made  byC.H. 
McCormick  in  1831 — it  had  a  straight  sickle  blade. 

William  S.  McCormick  and  Leandcr  J.  McCormick,  brothers  of 
C.  H.  McCormick,  also  testified  to  the  making  of  a  machine  in  1831. 


INVr.NTION    l)l-    KKAFING    MACHINES,  9 

Mary  McCormick, — mother  of  C.  H.  McCormick;  agreed  in  gen- 
eral with  the  testimony  of  her  sons, — did  not  doubt  but  it  was  correct, 
"  it  appears  familiar  to  me,"  but  testified  to  nothing  in  particular. 

John  Steele,  Jr. — Was  tavernkeeper  at  "Steele's  Tavern" — testified 
as  to  the  year  being  1831  or  1832.  In  his  amended  testimony,  admitted 
that  C.  H.  McCormick  wrote  the  paper  describing  the  machine  for  him 
to  testify  to;  recollects  little  else  about  the  machine  than  the  straight 
sickle  edge. 

Eliza  II.  Steele — refused  to  testify,  without  first  seeing  a  certificate 
previously  signed  by  her;  admitted  that  C.  H.  McCormick  wrote  it  for 
her  to  sign;  her  testimony  as  to  the  year,  depended  on  the  building  of 
a  certain  house,  on  which  the  workmen  put  183 1. 

John  McCown — was  a  black-smith — testified  that  he  made  the 
"  straight  sickle  blade,"  and  that  it  was  "  a  long  straight  sickle  "  blade. 

This  was  most  singular  testimony  to  found  a  claim  of  priority  of 
invention  on,  and  by  which  to  invalidate  another  man's  patent.  There 
was  discrepancy  in  the  evidence  as  to  the  year  of  the  invention;  also 
whether  the  machine  was  intended  for  one  or  two  horses;  how  the 
"  fingers  "  were  arranged,  and  whether  of  zvood  or  iron,  above  or  below, 
the  "straight  sickle  blade."  Two  of  the  brothers — one  at  least  who 
helped  to  make,  if  not  also  to  invent  this  machine — testified  that  the 
plan  or  arrangement  of  the  machine  here  sworn  to,  was  changed  in 
1840,  1841.  1842,  or  1843,  they  did  not  know  which;  from  9  to  12  years 
afterwards! 

John  McCown  swears  positively  that  he  helped  to  build  the  machine, 
so  far  at  least  as  to  forge  "a  long  straight  sickle;"  but  neither  he,  or  a 
single  one  of  the  se\en  sworn  witnesses,  "ladies  diVid  gentle  me  ?i,''  testify 
that  the  machine  ever  worked  a  single  hour,  or  cut  as  much  grain  of 
any  kind  as  would  make  a  single  sheaf.!* 

In  a  long  communication  to  Com'r.  Burke  in  1848,  together  with  a 
list  of  sales  and  profits,  C.  H.  McCormick  states,  and  on  oath,  that 
he  had  exhibited  his  machine  in  1840  or  1841  to  a  considerable 
number  of  farmers  and  very  satisfactorily,  though  but  one  person  could 
be  induced  to  purchase — a  Mr.  John  Smith  we  believe — and  that  up  to 
1842,  eleven  years  after  the  alleged  iinention,  he  had  sold  but  two 
machines,  and  one  of  them  conditionally.  Again,  in  the  same  paper  he 
states,  "  but  thej' failed  to  operate  well."  and  had  to  be  altered: — in 
other  words  they  would  not  work  at  all.     Amongst  others,  he  had 

*  The  reading  of  this  testimony  strongly  reminds  us  of  an  anecdote  related  at 
the  hustings  in  Va.  by  that  talented  but  eccentric  character,  John  Randolph,  of  Roa- 
noake,  in  a  political  canvass  with  an  opponent,  who  {iromised  what  he  would  do  for  his 
constituents,  if  elected.  Randolph  told  him  he  was  like  one  of  his  overseers,  a  plaus- 
ible fellow,  but  on  whom  little  reliance  was  to  be  placed — and  who,  desiring  to  show 
what  tine  crops  he  had  raised,  exhibited  a  better  tally  board  than  the  crop  could  jus- 
tify. "I  told  him,"  said  Rantiolph,  "  this  is  very  good  tally,  John,  but  where's  the 
corn?  and  I  tell  the  gentleman,  I  don't  want  to  see  his  tally,  but  the  corn  — the  evi- 
dence of  what  he  ever  did  to  entitle  him  to  a  seat  in  Congress."  The  effect  was 
electric,  and  the  hustings  rang  with  plaudits.  Now  we  would  say  to  C.  H.  .McCor- 
mick, this  is  very  good  tally  John,  but  where's  the  CORN?  The  evidctue  that  the 
machine  ever  cut  a  single  acre  of  grain. 


10  BRIEK   NAKKATlvn:   OF   THE 

applied  to  "  the  farmer  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Sampson,"   for  a  certificate  as 
to  the  satisfactory  working  of  the  machine,  but  it  was  declined. 

We  are  not  surprized  at  this;  for  some  35  years  ago  we  were  per- 
sonally acquainted  with  this  "farmer  of  Virginia,"  and  also  with  his 
mode  of  farming;  and  know  that  a  machine  of  any  kind  to  please  him 
must  ivork  and  must  also  work  ''well."  Richard  Sampson  was  at  that 
early  day  in  this  "  age  of  progress,"  one  of  the  best  and  most 
practical  farmers  in  the  "  Old  Dominion,"  and  was  not  a  man  to  be 
"caught  napping,"  either  at  home  or  abroad. 

The  record  shows  that  "  on  March, 29,  1848,  the  Board  met  agreea- 
bly to  adjournment — Present  James  Buchanan,  Sec'y  of  State,  Edmund 
Burke,  Commissioner  of  Patents,  and  R.  H.  Gillet,  Solicitor  of  the 
Treasury, — and  having  examined  the  evidence  adduced  in  the  case, 
decide  that  said  patent  ought  not  to  be  extended." 
Signed, 

James  Buchanan,  Sec'y  State. 
Edmund  Burke,  Commiss'r.  Pat's. 
R.  H.  GiLLETT,  Solicitor  Treas'y. 

This  evidence,  taken  in  due  form,  and  certified  to  by  the  magis- 
trates in  Augusta  and  Rockbridge  Counties,  Va.,  was  not  ruled  out  as 
informal,  as  we  have  seen  it  stated:  but  it  was  certainly  laid  before 
the  Board;  and  was  doubtless  satisfactory  both  as  to  priority  of  inven- 
tion;—and  in  connexion  with  Dr.  Page's  report,  conclusive,  "  that  said 
patent  ought  not  to  be  extended." 

We  have  also  seen  it  stated  that  Hussey  appeared  before  the  Board 
of  Extensions  "  to  contest  the  extension  of  McCormick's  patent." 

We  think  injustice — and  no  doubt  unintentionally — is  here  done  to 
Hussey.  Until  the  order  of  the  Board  was  passed  to  afford  him  the 
opportunity  to  defend  his  rights,  assailed  without  his  knowledge,  he 
was  not  aware  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  application.  As  a  matter  of 
course  he  then  attended,  but  stated  in  writing,  and  which  is  now  on 
file,  "  I  had  no  intention,  neither  had  I  any  desire  to  place  any  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  the  extension  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  patent.  But  the 
course  he  has  taken  before  your  Board  and  before  Congress,  has  com- 
pelled me  to  act  in  self  defense." 

Not  so  with  C.  H.  McCormick;  for  when  his  claims  were  rejected 
by  the  Board  of  Extensions,— and  most  justly,  aa  we  think,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  evidence — he  pctitio7ied  Co?igress  agaifist  Hussey  s  extension: 
and  to  this  most  ungenerous,  illiberal  and  unfair  course,  and  of  which 
Hussey  was  for  years  totally  ignorant,  C.  H.  McCormick  may  justly 
attribute  this  Enquiry; — but  for  this,  it  had  never  been  written.  Our 
object  is  not  to  injure  C.  H.  McCormick;  but  it  is  that  justice  may  be 
done  to  another,  whose  interests  and  rights  he  was  the  first  to  assail. 

If  the  foregoing  testimony  is  not  conclusive,  as  regards  priority  of 
invention  in  1831  against  C.  H.  McCormick,  we  think  the  evidence 
which  follows— and  which  no  one  will  pretend  to  call  in  question,  or 
doubt— establishes  the  fact  that  the  machine  of  183 1  was  good  for 
nothing, — not  even  half  i7ivented;  and  that  the  machine  of  1841,  was 
not  much  more  perfect. 


INVliNTlON    OK    KKAl'ING    MACHINES.  11 

On  page  231  of  the  Reports  of  Juries  for  the  Great  London  Exhibi- 
tion, and  now  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  we  find  the  following: 

"It  seems  right,"  says  Philip  Piiscy,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  "to  [jut  on  record 
Mr.  McCormick's  own  account  of  his  progress,  or  some  extracts  at  least, 
from  a  statement  written  by  iiim,  at  my  request." — [PusEV.] 

"  My  father  was  a  farmer  in  the  county  of  Rockbridge,  State  of  Vir- 
ginia, United  States.  He  made  an  experiment  in  cutting  grain  in  tiie 
year  18 16,  by  a  number  of  cylinders  standing  perpendicularly.  Another 
experiment  of  the  same  kind  was  made  by  my  father  in  the  harvest  of 
1831,  which  satisfied  my  father  to  abandon  it.  Thereupon  my  attention 
was  directed  to  the  subject,  and  the  same  harvest  I  invented  and  put  in 
operation  in  cutting  late  oats  on  the  farm  of  John  Steele,  adjoining  my 
father's,  those  parts  of  my  present  Reaper  called  the  platform,  for 
receiving  the  corn,  a  straight  blade  taking  effect  on  the  corn,  sup- 
ported by  stationary  fingers  over  the  edge,  and  a  reel  to  gather  the 
corn;  which  last,  however,  I  found  had  been  used  before,  though  not 
in  the  same  combination. 

"  Although  these  parts  constituted  the  foundation  of  the  present 
machine,  I  found  in  practice  innumerable  difficulties,  being  limited 
also  to  a  few  weeks  each  year,  during  the  harvest,  for  experimenting, 
so  that  my  first  patent  for  the  Reaper  was  granted  in  June,  1834. 

"  During  this  interval,  I  liurs  often  advised  by  my  father  and  family  to 
abandon  it,  and  pursue  7ny  regular  business,  as  likely  to  be  more  profitable,  he 
having  given  nte  a  farm.     [Italicised  by  C.  H.  McC] 

"  No  machines  were  sold  until  1840,  and  I  may  say  that  they  were 
not  of  much  practical  value  until  the  improvements  of  my  second  pat- 
ent in  1845. 

"  These  improvements  consist  in  reversing  the  angle  of  the  sickle 
teeth  alternately — the  improved  form  of  the  fingers  to  hold  up  the 
corn,  &c. — an  iron  case  to  preserve  the  sickles  from  clogging — and 
a  better  mode  of  se[)arating  the  standing  corn  to  be  cut.  Up  to  this 
period  nothing  but  loss  of  time  and  money  resulted  from  my  efforts. 
The  sale  has  since  steadily  increased,  and  is  now  more  than  a  thousand 
yearly."* 

It  would  be  just  as  conclusive  and  reasonable  for  the  father  oi  C.  H. 
McCormick  to  claim  at  this  day  priority  of  invention  for  his  Reaper 
invented  in  1816,  "by  a  number  of  cylinders  standing  perpendicularly;" 

*  "  The  sale  has  since  steadily  increased,  and  is  now  more  than  a  thousand 
yearly."  This  was  written  in  1851,  aid  by  a  little  calculation,  we  can  readily  esti- 
mate the  "  yearly  "  protlts.  In  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States,  at  Albany,  in 
the  suit  broui^ht  by  C.  H.  McCormick  against  Seymour  &  Morgan,  in  1850,  for  an 
alleged  infringement  of  patent,  it  was  proved  on  the  oath  of  (.).  H.  Dormon,  his 
partner,  and  also  on  the  oath  of  H.  A.  Blakesley,  their  clerk,  that  these  Reapers  only 
cost  f;{6  to  S37  to  manufacture.  By  the  same  evidence,  the  sales  averaged  from  iWQ 
to  $120  each  machine;  leaving  a  clear  profit  of  at  least  $73.  C.  H.  McCormick  first 
received  a. patent  fte  of  S;50  on  each  machine,  then  tlirce-fourihs  of  the  remainder  in 
the  division  of  profits.  It  would  thus  appear,  if  these  figures  are  corrert~and  they 
are  all  sworn  to— that  C.  H.  McCormick  realized  full  fiftv  thousand  dollars  clear 
profit  annually,  with  a  margin  of  eight  to  ten  thousand  dollars  for  commissions  and 
bad  debts  in  addition. 


12  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF    THE 

or  for  "  the  invention  made  by  my  father  in  the  harvest  of  183 1,  which 
satisfied  my  father  to  abandon  it."  This  authority,  high  and  ofificial  as 
all  must  admit  it  to  be,  [and  italicised  too,  by  the  writer  for  a  particu- 
lar object,]  clearly  proves  that  the  invention  of  1831  was  an  abortion; 
for  if  the  principle  was  effective  to  cut  one  acre  of  grain  properly,  any 
man  of  common  sense  knows  that  it  was  equally  so  to  cut  one  thousand 
acres;  but  so  complete  was  the  failure  that,"  During  this  interval  " — 
between  1831  and  \^i^— -''I zvas often  advised  by  jny  fatlier  arid  family  to 
abandon  it,  and  pursue  my  regular  business,  as  likely  to  be  ?nore  profitable, 
he  having  given  me  a  farm!' 

Again,  "  No  machines  were  sold  until  1840,  and  I  may  say  that  they 
were  not  of  much  practical  value  until  the  improvements  of  my  sec- 
ond patent  in  1845."  What  these  improvements  were  we  are  also  in- 
formed: "These  improvements  consist  in  reversing  the  angle  of  the 
sickle  teeth  alternately,  the  improved  form  of  the  fingers  to  hold  up 
the  corn,  &c.— an  iron  case  to  preserve  the  sickle  from  clogging,  &c. — 
up  to  this  period  nothing  but  loss  of  time  and  money  resulted  from 
my  efforts." 

Nor  is  it  at  all  surprising;  for  until  improvements  were  added,  in- 
vented and  long  in  successful  operation  by  others,  the  machine  would 
not  work,  and  consequently  no  one  would  buy. 

This  letter  is  the  most  perfect  and  complete  estopper  to  priority 
of  invention— not  only  for  i83i,butto  1841  inclusive,  if  not  to  1845, 
that  could  be  penned.  His  pen  cuts  a  "  cleaner  swath,"  as  we  farmers 
say,  than  ever  did  his  Reaper;  and  this  letter  at  least  is  certainly  C.  H. 
McCormick's  own  "  invention,"  which  no  one  else  can  lay  any  claim 
to.  Yet  strange  as  it  may  appear,  he  contended  before  the  Board  of 
Extensions  in  order  to  invalidate  Hussey's  Patent,  that  he  invented  a 
Reaping  Machine  nine  years  before!  So  has  perpetual  motion  been 
invented  a  hundred  times— in  the  estimation  of  the  projectors;  and  by 
his  own  showing,  and  on  oath,  he  sold  but  two  machines  up  to  1842— 
one  of  them  conditionally  sold— being  eleven  years  after  the  alleged 
invention,  and  even  they  had  to  be  re-invented  to  make  them  work,  or 
use  the  previous  inventions  of  others. 

In  this  letter  to  Philip  Pusey,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  C.  H.  McCormick  admits 
that  the  Reel  "  had  been  used  before,"  yet  he  includes  it  in  his  patent 
of  1834.— Both  the  specifications  and  drawings  in  the  Patent  Office, 
conclusively  establish  the  fact  that  James  Ten  Eyck  patented  the  reel 
or  "revolving  rack,"  or  "revolving  frame"  in  1825,  used  not  only  to 
gather  the  grain  as  all  such  devices  are  used,  but  by  the  knives  attached 
to  it,  also  intended  to  cut  it  off. 

Could  it  be  contended  that  because  rockers  are  attached  to  a  chair, 
it  is  no  longer  a  chair,  or  useful  as  a  seat?  Even  "  Mary  McCormick 
the  mother  of  Cyrus,"  and  "  P:iiza  H.  Steele,  of  Steele's  Tavern,  Va." 

nay  every  woman  and  child  in  the  country  would  tell  you  that  it  was 

then  a  rocking  chair,— just  as  much  a  seat  as  ever— and  Ten  PLyck's  was 
a  Reel  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  but  also  a  cutting  reel.  It  does  not 
require  the  mechanical  tact  and  skill  of  Professor  Page  to  discover 
that,  "the  revolving  rack  presents  novelty  chiefly  in  form,  as  its  oper- 


INVENTUJN    OK    KKAI'INO    .MACHINKS.  13 

ation  is  similar  to  the  revolving  frame  of  James  Ten  Eyck,  patented 
November  2d,  1825."  It  is  certain  the  reel  was  no  "  novelty,"  either 
in  183 1,  or  1834  when  patented  by  C.  H.  McCormick;  he  tells  us  so 
himself;  and  it  is  most  likely  the  Father  of  C.  H.  McCormick  also  used 
a  reel  for  his  "cylinders  standinf^  perpendicularly,  in  1816,"  and  also 
for  his  other  plan  in  1831,  and  "which  satisfied  my  father  to  abandon 
it."  And  it  is  equally  probable  that  most  of  the  "fathers  "and  the 
sons,  who  invented  Reapers  for  a  hundred  j'cars  preceding  the  date  of 
Hussey's  patent,  used  reels; — indeed  the  reel  seemed  to  be  considered 
a  Sine  qua  ?ion  by  many;  most  of  the  inventors  we  have  any  clear  ac- 
count of,  resorted  to  the  reel. 

Hussey  also  used  the  reel  in  1833. — of  course  the  reel  and  seat  in 
combination — but  only  for  a  short  period,  as  it  was  found  quite  unnec- 
essary,— an  actual  incumbrance  with  his  cutting  apparatus,  and  soon 
laid  it  aside. 

We  will  now  examine  another  invention  patented  by  C.  H.  McCor- 
mick, in  1847.  We  here  assert  and  challenge  a  denial,  that  from  12  to 
14  years  after  the  alleged  invention  of  a  Reaper  by  C.  H.  McCormick 
in  1831,  and  from  9  to  12  years  after  the  date  of  his  patent  in  1834  his 
raker  walked  hy  the  side  of  his  machine,  while  Hussey's  raker  rode  on 
the  machine  as  they  ahvays  had  done  since  his  first  machine  that  cut  the 
grain  like  "  a  thing  of  life  "  in  1  lamilton  county,  Ohio,  in  1833.  Yet, 
in  1847,  C.  H.  McCormick  takes  out  a  patent  for  the  rakers  seat!  this 
was  a  "  novelty"  and  well  worth  a  patent! 

In  two  trials  of  reaping  machines  by  Hussey  and  McCormick  in 
the  same  fields  in  Virginia,  in  1843,  one  at  Hutchinson's,  and  the  other 
on  the  plantation  of  the  late  Senator  Roane,  at  Tree  Hill,  near  Rich- 
mond, McCormick's  raker  zvalked  by  the  side  of  the  machine,  while 
Hussey's  rode  on  the  machine,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  did  just 
exactly  ten  years  before. 

We  have  three  letters  from  the  late  Hon.  \Vm.  H.  Roane  referring 
to  these  trials,  and  ordering  a  machine  from  Hussey,  after  witnessing 
the  operation  of  both.  Two  of  the  letters  he  desired  might  not  be 
published;  but  says  in  one  of  them,  "I  have  no  objection  to  your 
stating  publicly  that  a  member  oi  the  committee  who  made  the  report 
last  summer  at  H7itchi?iso?is,  which  was  published  a  few  days  there- 
after, witnessed  a  fuller  and  fairer  trial  between  the  two  machines,  and 
has  in  consequence  ordered  one  of  yours.     *     *     *     What  I  have  said 

above  of ,  is  intended  only  for  your  eye  confidentially,  to  show  you 

in  part  the  character  and  probable  motives  of  the  opposition  your 
Reaper  has  met.  Let  what  I  say  be  private,  as  I  have  a  great  objec- 
tion to  going  into  the  newspapers.  Should  you  e\-er  want  it,  you  can 
have  from  me  the  strongest  public  testimonial  of  ni)'  good  opinion  of 
your  machine." 

The  third  letter,  giving  this  "  testimonial  "  was  published  in  the 
American  Farmer,  in  January,  1844.  As  the  Raker's  Seat — the  main 
feature  of  C.  H.  McCormick's  patent  of  1847,  comes  fairly  within  the 
scope  of  this  Enquiry  as  to  priorit)'  of  invention,  we  re-publish  Sen- 
ator Roane's  letter  and  also  furnish  other  testimony  on  the  subject. 


14  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF   THE 

To  the  Editor  of  the  American  Farmer. 

As  the  question  of  zvhick  is  the  best  Reaping  Machine  is  of  no  little 
importance  to  wheat  growers,  it  is  highly  necessary  that  they  be  rightly 
informed  of  every  fact  which  tends  to  decide  the  question. — The  trial 
which  forms  the  subject  of  the  following  correspondence  was  looked 
forward  to  with  great  interest  by  farmers;  such  was  the  partial  charac- 
ter of  the  trial,  and  the  general  terms  of  the  committee's  report,  in 
which  the  particulars  that  led  to  the  result  were  omitted,  it  cannot  ap- 
pear strange  that  the  public  should  be  in  some  degree  misled  with 
regard  to  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  machines.  If  my  own  inter- 
est was  alone  concerned,  I  would  not  thus  far  trespass  on  your  col- 
umns, but  you  will  doubtless  agree  with  me,  that  it  is  due  to  wheat 
growers  throughout  the  country  that  the  views  expressed  by  Mr. 
Roane,  in  connection  with  the  committee's  report,  should  be  published 
as  extensively  as  the  report  itself ;  I  therefore  solicit  the  insertion  of 
the  following  correspondence  in  your  paper. 

Very  respectfully,  Obed  Hussey. 

Baltimore,  January  i8th,  1844. 
To  the  Hon.   IVm.  H.  Roane-: 

Dear  Sir, — You  will  remember  that  a  trial  took  place  on  the  farm 
of  Mr.  Hutchinson  near  Richmond,  Va.,  in  July  last,  between  my 
reaping  machine  and  Mr.  McCormick's,  at  which  trial  you  were  one  of 
a  committee  which  gave  the  preference  to   Mr.  McCormick's  machine. 

You  will  also  recollect  that  the  machine  which  I  used  at  that  time 
was  a  small  one,  and  quite  different  from  that  which  I  used  in  your 
field  a  few  days  afterwards,  in  a  second  trial  between  Mr.  McCormick 
and  myself. 

As  the  first  trial  was  made  under  circum.stances  unfavorable  to  my- 
self, owing  to  the  difificulties  which  prevented  me  from  getting  my 
best  machine  to  the  field  on  that  day,  and  other  impediments  inci- 
dental to  a  stranger  unprovided  with  a  team,&c.,  and  as  no  report  was 
made  of  the  second  trial,  you  will  oblige  me  by  informing  me  what 
your  impressions  were  after  witnessing  the  second  trial. 

I  would  very  gladly  embrace  the  opportunity  which  the  next  Jiar- 
vest  will  afford  of  following  up  my  experiments  in  wheat  cutting  in 
Virginia,  but  the  new  field  opened  to  me  in  the  great  zvest  for  cutting 
hemp,  in  which  I  was  so  successful  last  September,  as  will  appear  by 
the  Louisville  Journal  of  that  date,  will  claim  my  particular  attention 
this  year.  I  mention  this  to  you  lest  it  might  appear  that  I  had  aban- 
doned the  field  in  Virginia  by  my  non-appearance  there  in  the  next 
harvest. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  &c.,  Obed  Hussey. 

Tree  Hill,  January  23d,  1844. 

Dear  Sir, — I  received  a  few  days  ago  your  letter  of  the  17th  inst., 

on  the  subject  of  your  reaping  machine;  you  call  my  recollection  to  a 

trial  between  it  and  Mr.  McCormick's  reaper  at  Mr.  Hutchinson's   in 

July  last,  on   which  occasion  I  "was  one  of  a  committee  which  gave 


INVENTION    OK    KKAI'ING    MrtCHINES.  15 

the  preference  to  Mr.  McCormick's  machine;"  you  also  advert  to  a 
trial  between  these  rival  machines  a  few  days  subsequent,  at  this  place, 
and  request  to  know  my  impressions  after  this  second  trial.  I  presume 
from  the  fact  of  my  having  ordered  one  of  your  reapers  for  the  ensu- 
ing harvest,  that  it  is  your  purpose  to  publish  this  statement.  Averse 
as  1  am  to  having  my  name  in  print  on  this,  or  any  other  occasion,  I 
cannot  with  propriety  decline  a  response  to  your  inquiry.  I  had  never 
seen  or  formed  an  idea  of  a  reaping  machine  until  I  went  to  Hutchin- 
son's— I  was  surprised  and  delighted  with  the  performance  of  each  of 
them,  and  fully  resolved  to  own  one  of  them  by  the  «f;i:/ harvest,  but 
their  performance  that  day  left  me  in  a  state  of  doubt  which  I  should 
select. — The  report  spoke  in  terms  of  high  praise  of  each  machine,  and 
I  consented  to  its  award  that  on  the  ivhole  Mr.  McCormick's  was  prefer- 
able, merely  because  being  the  cheapest  and  requiring  but  two  horses, 
it  would  best  suit  the  majority  of  our  farmers,  who  make  small  crops 
of  wheat  on  ivcak  lafid—iox  I  doubted  its  capacity  in  heavy  grain 
After  this  Report  was  made  I  heard  your  complaint  that  you  did  not 
have  a  fair  trial,  because  being  unable  to  bring  into  the  field  your  large 
improved  Reaper,  which  was  up  the  River,  you  were  compelled  to 
comply  with  your  engagement  for  the  day,  with  a  small  and  inferio) 
machine,  drawn  by  an  indifferent  and  untutored  team.  Mr.  Hutchin- 
son's wheat  was  badly  rusted,  and  therefore  light.  I  had  ready  foi 
the  scythe,  a  low  ground  field  of  heavy  and  well  matured  grain:  partly 
to  expedite  my  harvest  work,  and  parti}'  to  renew  the  trial,  that  I  might 
solve  my  doubts  as  to  the  merits  of  these  machines,  I  succeeded  in 
engaging  them  to  be  at  Tree  Hill  on  a  named  day — they  both  came 
agreeable  to  appointment,  Mr.  McCormick  bringing  the  machine  he 
used  at  Hutchinson's,  and  you  bringing  the  one  you  could  not  on  that 
occasion  bring  down  the  river.  The  day  was  fine;  and  both  machines 
did  their  best,  and  had  a  very  fair  trial.  My  doubts  were  fully  re- 
moved, and  my  mind  convinced  that  for  the  heavy  wheat  we  raise  on 
our  river  low  grounds,  rich  bottoms,  &c.,  yonr  machine  is  superior  to 
Mr.  McCormick's,  of  which  I  still  thi>:k  highly — I  accordingly  ordered 
one  of  yours  to  be  made  for  the  approaching  harvest. 

I  wish  you  all  possible  success  in  cutting  hemp  in  the  "  Great 
West." — It  must  be  very  desirable  to  cut  that  valuable  plant  instead  of 
pulling  it  up  by  the  roots,  and  I  cannot  doubt  that  your  reaper  has 
ample  pozaer  for  the  process 

Most  respectfully,  yours,  &c.,  W.  H.  Roane. 

Mr.  Obed  Hussey,  Baltimore. 

We  are  not  advised  at  w-hat  precise  period  subsequent  to  1843  ^"^ 
previous  to  1847, (when  C.  H.  McCormick  patented  the  raker's  seat) 
that  he  changed  the  arrangement  of  his  wheels.  &c.,  so  as  to  admit  a 
seat  for  his  raker  without  "  tipping  up  the  machine  "  as  was  unavoida- 
ble previously.  From  evidence  deemed  fully  reliable,  he  was  not  the 
first  even  on  his  own  machine,  to  provide  a  seat  for  the  raker.  "  and  all 
take  a  ride."  It  is  laborious  enough  to  test  fully  the  endurance  of  the 
most  powerful  and  muscular  man,  to  ride  and  rake;  but  to  walk  and 


1(5  BRIEF    NAKKATIVE   OF   THE 

rake  is  even  more  barbarous  than  the  old  time  ball  and  chain  to  the  leg 
of  the  felon.  The  considerate  and  feeling  farmer  would  certainly 
"wait  for  the  wagon"  to  be  better  fixed  before  thus  undertaking  to 
reap  his  grain  fields  if  himself  or  his  hands  had  to  ride  in  this  sort 
of  style. 

We  have  a  letter  from  Isaac  Irvine  Hite,  Esq.  now  of  Clarke 
County,  Va.,  which  throws  some  light  on  the  subject;  he  says,  (itali- 
cised by  the  writer:) 

"In  1842  my  father,  by  my  request  purchased  for  me  of  C.  H. 
McCormick  and  Father,  a  reaper  at  SiiO,  which  was  drawn  by  two 
horses,  and  it  was  raked  off  to  the  right  hand  side  by  a  man  on  foot. 
The  father  of  C.  H  McCormick  stated  to  me  at  the  commencement 
of  that  harvest,  that  it  had  been  ?n?ie years  since  they  had  first  operated 
with  it,  in  pretty  much  the  form  it  was  then  constructed.  On  a  recent 
visit  to  Messrs.  McCormick,  who  then  resided  on  the  line  between 
Augusta  and  Rockbridge  Counties  in  this  State,  the  old  gentleman 
stated  to  me  that  he  had  been  at  odd  times  at  work  on  the  reaper  for 
many  years;  and  either  he  or  his  son  stated  to  me  that  C.  H.  McCor- 
mick had  been  improving,  changing  or  inventing  various  parts  until  they 
had  (as  they  thought)  perfected  the  machine.  *  *  *  I  disliked  the 
labor  imposed  on  the  ha?id  zvlio  had  to  walk  afid  remove  the  wheat  from  a 
platform  seven  feet  in  width,  and  urged  Messrs  McCormick  to  attach 
another  contrivance  so  as  to  enable  the  raker  to  ride  and  perform  his 
arduous  task;  the  old  gentleman  contended  that  that  could  never  be 
accomplished,  butthata  self-operating  appendage  could  be  constructed 
to  remove  the  grain,  but  that  would  be  uncertain,  and  entirely  unrelia- 
ble. During  my  visit,  he  pointed  out  to  me  one  or  more  fixtures  they 
had  tried  for  the  raker  to  ride  on.  I  think  one  was  on  one  wheel,  and 
the  other  on  two. 

I  yet  contended  that  it  could  be  accomplished;  if  by  no  other 
means,  by  changing  the  construction  of  the  machine,  and  remarked  to 
him,  if  I  were  a  mechanic,  and  understood  the  construction  of  the 
machine  well  enough  to  venture  to  alter  its  parts,  I  was  certain  I  could 
so  arrange  it,  and  requested  him  to  urge  his  son  to  make  the  effort;  he 
replied  that  it  would  be  useless;  that  they  had  tried  every  imaginable 
way  or  plan  before  placing  the  machine  before  the  public,  and  that 
they  regarded  it  as  an  impossibility,  successfully,  and  properly,  in  any 
other  way  than  on  foot,  and  said  it  was  necessary  for  the  heads  to  be 
brought  round  to  the  right,  in  which  I  fully  agreed;  but  contended 
it  could  be  done  while  the  raker  was  riding  or  standing  in  an  erect 
position. 

After  this  unsatisfactory  interview  I  returned  home,  and  at  the  close 
of  the  next  wheat  harvest  I  had  a  small  carriage,  about  3  feet  by  3>^ 
feet,  constructed  on  two  wheels,  and  connected  underneath  the  plat- 
form, by  means  of  shafts  to  the  back  part  of  the  head  of  the  machine; 
this  during  the  cutting  of  my  oat  crop  answered  every  purpose,  so  far 
as  the  raker  was  concerned,  but  there  was  a  difficulty  in  turning.  C. 
H.  McCormick  came  to  see  this  combination  sometime  during  the 
year,  and  condemned  it  in  toto.     But  by  the  next  harvest  I  had  it  so 


INVKNTlON    OF    KKAl'lNG    MACHINKS.  17 

constructed,  as  to  be  clrau  ii  by  an  iron  bar  so  shaped,  appended  and 
supported  on  the  underneath  part  of  the  carriage,  as  to  athnit  of  the 
machine  turning  in  any  direction,  and  the  carriage  would  follow  just 
as  the  two  hind  wheels  of  a  wagon  do;  the  carriage  had  a  seat  behind, 
and  a  thick  deep  cushion  in  front,  for  the  raker  to  press  his  knees 
against  while  removMug  the  grain  from  the  platform  to  his  right  hand, 
which  he  was  enabled  to  do  with  api)arent  ease  with  a  rake  of  pcciiliar 
sliapc ; — (  it  cannot  be  done  with  a  rake  of  ordinary  shape.) 

The  working  of  the  first  carriage  was  witnessed  by  many  gentle- 
men who  approved  of  it;  and  the  combination  of  the  secontl  carriage 
I  applied  for  a  patent  for.  The  model  carriage  can  now  be  seen  in 
the  room  of  the  Patent  Office,  containing  models  of  all  rejected 
patents.  After  this,  I  heard  of  McCormick  making  experiments  at 
one  of  his  Western  factories — I  think  it  was  at  Chicago;  and  finally 
he  addressed  mQ  a  letter,  stating-  he  had  changed  the  construction  of  his 
fuachine,  and  had  it  so  eonstriuted  that  tJie  raker  could  ride  on  the  machine 
and  ronove  the  grain." 

We  think  the  foregoing  letter — for  it  carries  truth  on  its  face — clearly 
shows  that  the  idea  of  "  changing  the  construction  of  the  machine," 
and  permit  the  raker  to  ride,  did  not  originate  with  the  McCormick's, 
father  or  son;  for  "they  had  tried  every  imaginable  plan  or  way  before 
placing  the  machine  before  the  public,  and  that  they  regarded  it  as  an 
impossibility  for  the  wheat  to  be  so  removed  regularl)^  successfully 
and  properly,  in  any  other  way  except  on  foot." 

At  the  trial  referred  to  at  Hutchinson's,  and  the  late  Senator 
Roane's  in  1843,  it  was  demonstrated  that  a  raker  could  ride  and  rake, 
and  as  was  also  done  by  Hussey  many  years  before,  at  various  places, 
and  deli\'ering  the  grain  at  back  or  side.  But  we  have  still  better  evi- 
dence than  the  above — C.  H.  McCormick  himself. 

His  Patent  of  1847,  covering  some  four  or  fiv'e  folio  pages,  is  alto- 
gether to  change  "the  construction  of  the  machine,"  to  admit  of,  and 
to  patent  the  raker's  seat;  the  substance  of  the  whole  is  comprised 
within  the  following  brief  extract  from  the  patent  of  1847: 

"And  the  gearing' which  communicates  motion  to  the  crank  is  placed  back  of 
the  driving  wheel,  which  is  therefore  subject  to  be  clogged  by  sand,  dirt,  straw,  &C. 
— and  ill  conscquoicc  of  tlic  relath'e  position  of  the  various  parts,  the  attendant  is 
obliged  to  icalk  on  the  ground  by  the  side  of  tJie  machine,  to  ralce  the  cut  grain  from 
the  ptatfor//i  as  it  is  detii'eredaiid  laid  there  by  the  reet.  These  defects  which  have 
so  much  retarded  the  introduction  into  practical  and  general  use  of  Reaping  Ma- 
chines, I  have  remedied  by  my  improvements,  the  nature  of  which  consists  in  plac- 
ing the  driving  wheels  further  back  than  heretofore,  and  back  of  the  gearing  which 
communicates  motion  to  the  sickle,  which  is  placed  in  a  line  back  of  the  axis  of  the 
driving  wheel,  the  connexion  being  formed,  &c.  and  also  bringing  the  driving  wheel 
sufficiently  far  back  to  balance  the  frame  of  t  lie  machine  7vith  the  raker  on  it,  to  make 
room  for  him  to  sit  or  stand  on  the  frame,"  &c.  &c. — "zuhicli  cannot  be  done,  if  tlie 
raker  tvalks  by  the  side  of  the  machine,  as  heretofore." 

Now  if  C.  H.  McCormick's  testimony  in  his  own  favor,  can  be  con- 
sidered reliable,  he  certainly  had  not  zV/r'tv/Zdv/ a  seat  for  his  raker  as 
late  as  1845 — and  not  long  prior  to  1847,  ^vhen  he  patented  it;  and 
']\\st  fourteen  years  after  Hussey  had  used  it  ei'cry  year,  successivel\\ 
The  raker's  seat  therefore  was  just  as  original  iw\  in\cntion  as  the  reel. 


IS  URIEF   NARKATIVK   OF    THE 

The  "straight  sickle  blade,"  but  cut  one  way  only,  and  abandoned 
some  10  or  12  years  after  its  conception  in  1831,  as  he  states,  appears 
to  be  the  only  original  idea — properly  belonging  to  whom  it  may — in 
the  patent  of  1834.  As  to  the  "foundation  "  of  the  machine,  viz: — the 
platform,  cog  wheels,  crank,  ^vc.  &c.,  they  have  been  used  by  every 
projector  in  reaping  machines,  for  a  century. 

A  machine  exhibited  at  the  World's  Fair  in  London,  by  C.  H. 
McCormick,  had  the  "straight  sickle  blade,"  but  alternating  the  cuts 
every  few  inches.  With  such  a  machine  it  is  impracticable  to  cut 
grain,  much  less  grass,  efificicntly,  divested  of  the  reel.  That  plan  has 
since  been  changed  to  a  much  more  efficient  blade,  the  scolloped  edged 
sickle.  That  it  was  used  in  the  N.  Western  States  by  others  several 
years  previous  to  its  adoption  by  C.  H.  McCormick,  we  believe  admits 
of  just  as  little  doubt,  as  rests  with  the  priority  of  invention  of  the 
Reel,  Rakcrs-seat,  &c. 

There  is  one  other  important  feature,  patented  in  1845  and  referred 
to  in  the  Pusey  letter;— an  "Iron  case  to  preserve  the  sickles  from 
clogging;"  these  we  will  also  take  a  look  into  after  a  while. 

Obed  Hussey  as  appears  by  the  evidence  before  us,  made  his  first 
Machine  in  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  where  he  then  resided,  in  the  spring  of 
1833,  and  it  was  patented  the  same  year.  Threshing  machines  were 
then  being  introduced  into  that  section,  and  were  attracting  much 
notice.  (Overhearing  the  conversation  of  an  individual  interested  in 
such  implements,  he  asked  the  question  if  there  were  no  machines  to 
reap  the  grain?  The  reply  was  no;  "  and  whoever  will  invent  one  will 
make  a  fortune." 

Without  any  knowledge,  as  we  believe,  of  what  had  been  done  by 
others, — and  certainly  his  occupations  had  not  been  such  as  to  make 
him  familiar  with  the  subject  by  reading,  or  otherwise — it  claimed  the 
attention  of  his  leisure  hours  so  far  as  to  make  a  model.  This  satisfied 
him  that  the  thing  was  practicable,  and  he  undertook  an  operating 
machine,  which  although  lightly  made,  was  suf=ficient  fully  to  test  the 

principle.  .  r    1       /-        j 

This  principle — the  arrangement  and  construction  of  the  Guards 
and  Knives,  was  precisely  identical  with  those  used  by  him  at  the 
present  day,  except  an  improvement  patented  in  1847,  leaving  open- 
ings at  the  back  end  of  the  slot  in  the  guards  for  the  escape  of  parti- 
cles of  straw  or  grass  that  might  get  in  between  the  blades  and  guards. 

It  was  communicated  at  the  time  by  letter  with  a  diagram  to  a  per- 
sonal friend  now  living,  and  of  the  highest  respectability,  from  whom 
we  have  a  certificate,  and  copy  of  the  drawing.  The  knives  or  cutters, 
for  lack  of  more  suitable  materials  were  made  out  of  hand  saw  blades 
cut  into  suitable  form,  and  riveted  to  a  bar,  vibrating  through  an 
opening  or  slot  in  the  guards. 

Judge  Foster  residing  within  a  few  miles  of  the  city,  and  to  whom 
he  appfied,  kindly  offered  him  every  facility  to  test  the  machine  by 
cutting  grain,  ripe  and  unripe,  being  himself  greatly  interested  in  its 
success.  When  taken  to  the  field,  a  considerable  number  of  persons 
were  attracted  to  the  spot;  and  rather  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  in- 


INVIiNTION   01-'    KEAJUNG   MACHINES.  19 

ventor,  for  it  may  well  be  supposed  it  was  an  anxious  moment  to  him, 
and  he  desired  no  witnesses  to  his  failure.  The  machine  was  started; 
but  o\\  ing  to  some  part  j^i\int^  away,  or  some  sli<,dit  defect  not  appar- 
ent until  then,  it  failed  to  work  satisfactorily.  One  burley  fellow 
present  picked  up  a  cradle,  and  swinging  it  with  an  air  of  great  exul- 
tation, exclaimed,  "  this  is  the  machine  to  cut  the  wheat  !" 

After  the  jeers  and  merriment  of  the  crowd  had  somewhat  subsided, 
the  inventor  remedied  the  defect,  and  assisted  by  the  laborers  present 
— the  horses  having  been  removed — pulled  the  machine  to  the  top  of 
an  adjacent  hill;  when  alone,  he  drew  the  machine  down  the  hill,  and 
through  the  standing  grain,  when  it  cut  e\'ery  head  clean  in  its  track  ! 

The  siDne  machine  was  directly  afterwards  exhibited  before  the 
Hamilton  County  Agricultural  Society  near  Carthage,  on  the  2nd  of 
July,  1833.  Of  its  operation  and  success,  the  following  statements: 
and  certificates,  now  in  our  possession,  sufficiently  testify.  Doctor 
Wallace  as  well  as  some  others  of  the  gentlemen,  are  living  witnesses 
of  what  is  here  stated. 

Cincinnati,  November  20th,  1833. 

This  may  certify,  that  I  was  present  on  the  2nd  day  of  July  near 
Carthage  in  this  county,  at  an  experiment  trial  with  a  machine  in- 
vented by  Mr.  Obed  Mussey  for  cutting  grain.  The  operation  was 
performed  on  a  field  of  wheat.  The  machine  was  found  to  cut  the 
wheat  clean,  and  with  great  rapidity.  But  owing  to  its  having  been 
miperfectly  made,  being  only  constructed  for  the  experiment,  some 
parts  of  ivood  which  should  have  been  made  of  iron,  and  in  conse- 
quence frequently  getting  some  parts  out  of  order,  a  correct  estimate 
of  the  quantity  of  work  it  would  perform  in  a  given  time  could  not  be 
made.  One  point  was  however  satisfactorily  established,  that  the 
principle  ui)on  which  the  machine  is  constructed  will  operate;  and 
when  well  built  will  be  an  important  improvement,  and  greatly  facili- 
tate the  harvesting  of  grain.  I  would  also  remark  that  the  horses 
moving  the  machine,  were  walked,  and  trotted,  and  it  was  found  to 
cut  best  with  the  greatest  velocity. 

C.  D.  Wallace. 
Secretary  of  the  Hamilton  County  Agricultural  Society. 

We,  the  undersigned,  witnessed  the  exhibition  of  Mr.  O.  Hussey's 
Machine  for  cutting  grain  alluded  to  by  Dr.  Wallace,  and  do  fully 
concur  with  his  statement  of  its  performance.  We  would  further  add. 
that  notwithstanding  its  temporary  construction,  its  performance  far 
exceeded  our  expectation.  Cutting  the  grain  clean  and  rapidl\-,  and 
leaving  it  in  good  order  for  binding.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the 
machine  is  capable  of  being  propelled  at  the  rate  of  five  miles  the 
hour,  and  do  good  work.  The  machine  was  worked  when  the  cutters 
were  both  in  a  sharp,  and  a  dull  condition,  and  no  difference  could  be 
perceived  in  its  execution. 

( Sii^ned. ) 
G.  A.  Mavhew,  Jacob  White,  S.  W.  Folger, 

T.  R.  Seb'ring,  H.  B.  Coffin.  T.  B.  Coffin, 

A.  Castner,  C.  F.  Coffin,  Wm.  Paddock. 


20  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF   THE 

There  are  several  other  certificates  equally  conclusive  and  satis- 
factory; but  we  will  only  copy  in  addition  to  the  foregoing,  a  short 
oiece  from  the  "  Farmer  and  Mechanic,"  issued  July  3d,  1833,  in  Cin- 
cinnati, as  follows: 

"  Several  members  of  the  Agricultural  Society  on  last  Wednesday,  attended  in 
Carthage  to  see  a  machine  for  cutting  wheat  by  horse  power,  in  operation.  It  was 
propelled  by  two  horses,  and  cut  as  fast  as  eight  persons  could  conveniently  bind, 
doing  the  cutting  neatly. 

This  machine  is  the  invention  of  Mr.  O.  Hussey,  and  will  no  doubt  prove  a 
useful  addition  to  our  agricultural  implements.  Mr.  J.  C.  Ludlow  suggested  that  it 
would  be  good  economy  of  time  and  labor,  to  take  a  threshing  machine  into  the 
field,  and  "thresh  out  the  grain  as  it  is  reaped,  thereby  saving  the  binding  and  hauling 
to  the  barn  or  stack.     We  think  the  suggestion  a  good  one." 

Here  then,  was  the  problem  solved  —  the  great  discovery  made, 
that  had  puzzled  the  brains  of  hundreds  if  not  of  thousands,  and  for 
centuries.  No  one  we  fearlessly  assert  had  ever  succeeded  so  com- 
pletely and  satisfactorily,  and  with  so  simple  and  practical  a  machine. 

Some  visited  the  exhibition  determined  to  condemn  as  they  after- 
wards acknowledged,  deeming  the  thing  impracticable;  but  all  were 
convinced;  for  the  demonstration  was  of  that  character  which  left 
no  room  for  doubt  or  cavil  on  the  minds  of  any. 

It  was  indeed  a  triumph, — not  perhaps  entirely  unexpected  to  the 
inventor — but  neither  he,  or  any  one  else  at  that  early  day,  could 
foresee  the  wonderful  changes  ultimately  to  be  effected,  and  the  world 
wide  renown  to  be  conferred  on  the  inventor  as  the  result  of  this 
experiment;  one  that  was  certain  to  immortalize  his  name  as  a  pioneer 
and  benefactor  in  the  most  useful  and  peaceful  pursuits  in  life.  It  was 
too,  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  day  to  the  toiling  husbandman,  by  lighten- 
ing his  labours,  and  adding  to  his  comfort  and  independence;  only 
circumscribed  in  its  beneficial  influence  by  the  bounds  of  civilization. 

Some  may  possi.bly  suppose  that  we  view  the  invention  in  too 
glowing  colours;  but  we  have  yet  to  meet  with  the  farmer  who  owned 
a  good  reaping  and  mowing  machine,  that  would  dispense  with  its 
advantages  for  twice  the  cost  of  the  implement,  and  again  be  com- 
pelled to  resort  to  the  sickle,  the  cradle,  and  the  scythe;  for  of  a  truth 
it  completely  supersedes  all  three  in  competent  hands  and  with  fair 
usage,  in  both  the  grain  and  grass  crops. 

It  is  difficult  to  confine  our  narrative  to  its  intended  brief  limits 
and  select  from  the  mass  of  evidence  on  hand,  as  to  the  uninterrupted 
success  of  Hussey's  invaluable  invention  from  that  day  to  the  present — 
now  twenty  one  years.  We  will  therefore  only  select  a  single  and  short 
account  of  each  year;  until  about  1840  or  '42;  not  long  after  which 
a  few  other  inventors  came  before  the  public.  There  was  however 
no  competitor  in  the  field  from  1833,  to  1841,  or  1842,  either  in  Europe 
or  America,  so  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  that  did  more  than  make  a  few 
occasional  trials;  none  attracted  public  attention,  or  were  successful 
and  efficient  machines  even  in  the  estimation  of  the  projectors  them- 
selves. The  evidence  proves  it,  and  it  is  corroborated  by  our  own 
personal  knowledge,  having  been  constantly  engaged  in  Agricultural 
and  Mechanical  pursuits  for  more  than  thirty  years — and  as  we  believe, 


INVENTION   OF    KEAl'lNG    MACHINES.  21 

familiar  with  most  of  the  important  improvements  of  the  age; — 
of  all  in  fact,  directly  connected  with  agriculture  in  its  labour  saving 
implements,  of  any  notoriety. 

Many  alleged  improvements  have  been  made  in  the  Reaper  in  the 
past  10  or  12  years;  and  man\'  more  still,  within  half  that  period. 
How  far  they  are  /tcz^'  inventions,  and  actual  vnprovcmcnts,  we  can 
better  judge  by  examining  Ilussey's  patent;  for  it  describes  the  cutting 
apparatus  clearly  and  minutely,  and  which  in  fact  is  the  whole  thing, — 
the  "  one  thing  needful  "  to  success.  For  the  use  of  wheels,  or  a  system 
of  gearing  to  all  kinds  of  moti\'e  machinery  is  coeval  with  the  first 
dawn  of  mechanical  science.  How  ancient  we  know  not,  for  the 
Prophets  of  old  spoke  of  "  wheels  within  wheels  "  near  three  thousand 
years  ago;  and  it  is  very  certain  the  hand  of  man,  unaided  by  wheels 
and  machinery,  never  erected  the  vast  Pyramids  and  other  structures 
of  antic]uity.  We  do  not  believe  there  is  a  single  Reaping  and  Mowing 
machine  in  successful  operation  on  this  continent  that  is  not  mainly 
indebted  to  Hussey's  invention  in  the  cutting  apparatus,  for  its  success: 
deprive  them  of  this  essential  feature — disrobe  them  of  their  borrowed 
plumes,  and  their  success  would  be  like  the  flight  of  the  eagle,  suddenly 
bereft  of  his  pinions, — he  must  fall;  and  the  machines  would  stand 
still,  for  not  a  farmer  in  the  land  would  use  them. 

As  previously  remarked,  O.  Hussey's  first  patent  is  dated  in  1833. 
We  omit  the  more  general  description  of  the  machine,  and  copy  only 
what  embraces  the  most  important  features,  the  guards  and  knives: 
also  an  extract  from  his  improvement  patented  in  1S47,  to  obviate 
choking  in  the  guards: 

"On  the  front  edge  of  the  platform  is  fixed  the  cutting  or  reaping  apparatus, 
which  is  constructed  ui  the  following  manner: — A  series  of  iron  spikes,  and  which 
I  will  c-aW  iruards,  are  tixed  permanently  to  the  platform,  and  extend  seven  or  eight 
inches,  more  or  less,  beyond  the  edge  of  the  platform,  parallel  to  each  other, 
horizontal,  and  pointing  forward.  —  These  guards  are  about  three  incties  apart, 
of  a  suitable  size,  say  three-quarters  of  an  inch  square,  more  or  less,  at  the  base, 
and  lessening  towards  the  point.  The  guards  are  formed  of  a  top  and  bottom  piece, 
joined  at  the  point  and  near  the  liack,  being  nearly  parallel,  and  about  one-eiijhth 
of  an  inch  apart,  forming  a  horizontal  mortice  or  slit  through  the  guard;  these 
mortices  being  on  a  line  with  each  other,  form  a  continued  range  of  openings 
or  slits  through  the  guards.  The  first  guard  is  placed  on  the  rear  of  the  right 
wheel,  and  the  last  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  platform,  and  the  intermediate  guards 
at  equal  distances  from  each  other,  and  three  inches  apart,  more  or  less,  from  center 
to  center. 

The  cutter  or  saw,  f,  is  formed  of  thin  triangular  plates  of  steel  fastened 
to  a  straight  flat  rod,  e.  of  steel,  iron  or  wood,  one-inch  and  a-half  wide;  these 
steel  plates  are  arranged  side  by  side,  forming  a  kind  of  saw  with  teeth  three  inches 
at  the  base,  and  four  and  a  half  inches  long,  more  or  less,  sharp  on  both  sides, 
and  terminating  nearly  in  a  point.  The  saw  is  then  passed  through  all  the  guards 
in  the  aforesaid  range  of  mortices,  the  size  of  the  mortice  being  suiteii  to  receive 
the  saw  with  the  teeth  pointing  forward;  observing  always  that  the  points  of  the 
saw  teeth  should  corresi)ond  with  the  center  of  the  guards.  One  end  of  the  saw 
is  connected  with  a  pitman  moved  by  a  crank,  and  receiving  its  motion  from  the 
main  axis,  by  one  or  two  sets  of  cog  wheels.  The  vibration  of  this  crank  must 
be  etjual  to  the  distances  of  the  centers  of  the  guards,  or  the  points  of  the  saw  teeth, 
or  thereabouts,  so  when  the  machme  is  in  motion,  the  point  of  each  saw  tooth  may 
pass  from  center  to  center  of  the  guards  on  each  side  of  the  same  tooth  at  every 
vibration  of  the  crank;  if  the  main  wheels  are  three  feet  four  inches  in  diameter, 


22  BRIEF    NAKKATIVE   OF   THE 

they  should   in  one   revolution   give  the  crank   sixteen  vibrations,  more  or  less; 
the  saw  teeth  should  play  clear  of  the  guards,  both  above  and  below.     *    *    * 

Operation.  —  The  power  is  given  by  locking  the  wheels  to  the  main  axis, 
the  machine  has  one  square  wheel  box,  the  other  round  and  locked  at  pleasure. 
If  the  power  should  be  wanted,  one,  two,  or  more  horses  are  attached  and  driven 
on  the  stubble  before  the  machine,  the  right  wheel  running  near  the  standing  gram, 
the  platform  with  the  saw  in  its  front  edge  extends  on  the  right,  at  right  angles 
with  the  direction  of  the  horses,  with  the  guards  and  saw  teeth  presented  to  the 
standing  grain— when  the  machine  moves  forward,  the  saw  moves  with  the  teeth 
endwise  and  horizontal,  the  grain  or  grass  is  brought  between  the  guards,  the  saw 
teeth  in  passing  through  the  guards,  cut  the  stalk  while  held  both  above  and  below 
the  saw — the  butts  of  the  grain  receive  an  impulse  forward  by  the  motion  of  the 
machine  while  in  the  act  of  being  cut,  which  causes  the  heads  of  the  grain  to  fall 
directly  backwards  on  the  platform— in  this  manner  the  platform  receives  the  grain 
until  a'sufhcient  quantity  is  collected  to  make  one  or  more  bundles,  according  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  operator,  then  it  is  deposited  with  a  proper  instrument  by  the  oper- 
ator, WHO  MAY  RIDE  ON  THE  MACHINE." 

Here  follows  the  dimensions  of  a  machine  suited  to  two  horses, 
which  is  only  copied  so  far  as  refers  to  the  cutting  apparatus,  viz: 
"the  back  of  the  saw  may  be  from  one  inch  to  ij4  inches  wide,  and 
from  three  sixteenths  to  one  quarter  of  an  inch  thick;  and  the  steel 
plates  for  the  teeth  should  be  about  one-tenth  of  an  inch  thick;  one 
end  of  the  mortice  in  the  guard  should  be  fitted  to  receive  the  back 
of  the  saw,  so  that  the  bearing  may  be  on  the  back  of  the  saw  only." 

"  In  this  machine  the  following  points  are  claimed  as  new  and  original: — 
1st. — The  straight  horizontal  saw,  with  the  teeth  sharp  on  their  two  sides  for  cutting 
grain.  2d.— The  guards  forming  double  bearers  above  and  below  the  saw,  whereby 
the  cutting  is  made  sure,  whether  with  a  sharp  or  dull  edge,  the  guards  at  the  same 
time  protecting  the  saw  from  rocks  or  stones,  or  other  large  substances  it  may  meet 
with.  8d.— The  peculiar  construction  that  the  saw  teeth  may  run  free,  whereby 
the  necessary  pressure  and  consequent  friction  of  two  corresponding  edges  cutting 
together,  as  on  the  principle  of  scissors,  is  entirely  avoided.  4th. — The  peculiar 
arrangement  by  which  the  horses  are  made  to  go  before  the  machine,  being  more 
natural,  and  greatly  facilitating  the  use  of  the  machine,  and  the  general  arrange- 
ment of  the  points  as  above  described. 

In  cutting  grass,  the  platform  is  reduced  in  width,  and  the  grass  falls  on  the 
ground  as  it  is  cut." 

In  the  improvement  of  the  guards  patented  in  1847,  the  claim 
states,  "I  accordingly  claim  the  opening  above  the  blades  A,  fig.  3, 
and  at  D.  fig  i,  in  combination  with  vibrating  blades.  I  also  claim 
the  particular  application  of  the  flush  edge  at  the  fork  of  the  blades, 
for  the  purpose  described. 

The  end  and  design  of  the  improvements  above  claimed,  is  to  pre- 
vent the  blades  choking." 

E?i  passarit,  \vc  would  ask  any  intelligent  and  candid  farmer 
or  mechanic  who  has  examined  a  successful  reaper,  to  compare  the 
foregoing  plain  specifications  which  all  can  understand,  with  the 
cutting  apparatus  of  the  most  successful  modern  machirie.  And 
we  would  especially  desire  him  to  compare  them  in  principle  with 
the  "  improved  form  of  fingers  to  hold  up  the  corn,  and  an  iron  case 
to  preserve  the  sickles  from  clogging;"  not  the  alleged  invention 
of  183 1,  by  C.  H.  McCormick,  and  abandoned  from  1840  to  1843. 
but  the  claims  patented  by  him  in  1845,  [as  stated  in  the  letter 
to  Philip  Pusey,  M.  P.]  twelve  years  after  the  date  of  Hussey's  patent, 


INVKNTION    OK    KllAI'lNCi    .M.\(H1M:S.  23 

and  twelve  years  after  his  most  complete  and  uninterrujitecl  success 
in  cuttint^  both  grain  and  grass.  In  tact  there  was  no  year  from,  and 
including  1S33,  up  to  1854,  a  perit)d  of  21  years  the  past  harvest, 
that  we  have  not  the  most  positive  and  conclusive  evidence  of  the 
success  of  Ilussey's  reaper;  in  numerous  cases  the  same  machines  had 
cut  from  500  to  800,  and  even  one  thousand  acres;  in  one  instance, 
the  same  machine  was  used  for  fourteen  harvests,  or  as  many  years, 
succcssixx'ly  and  successfully. 

We  have  given  some  of  the  evidence  for  i<S33.  For  1S34  we  annex 
two  letters  giving  an  account  of  the  two  machines  made  this  \car, 
one  in  Illinois,  and  the  other  in  New  York,  viz: 

Spring  Creek,  Sangamon  Co.,  III..  ) 
Oct.  1st,  1854.         ( 
Mr.  Obcd  Hiisscy,  Baltii)iorc. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  favor  of  i\ugust  loth  came  to  hand  a  few  days 
since.  The  reason  was,  it  lay  at  Berlin  (formerly  Island  Grove  Post- 
olifice)  and  my  Post-office  address  is  Springfield,  the  only  place  where 
I  call  for  letters. 

In  answer  to  your  query,  how  your  Reaping  Machine  worked 
in  1834,  I  have  to  say  that  it  cut  about  sixteen  acres  of  wheat  for 
me  on  my  farm;  that  it  did  the  work  in  first  rate  style;  according 
to  my  best  recollection,  as  well  as  any  of  the  machines  that  have 
since  been  introduced.  The  only  objection  I  recollect  being  made, 
was,  that  when  the  straw  was  wet,  or  there  was  much  green  grass 
among  the  wheat,  the  blades  would  choke.  You  certainly  demon- 
strated in  1834  the  practicability  of  cutting  grain  or  grass  with  horse 
power;  and  all  the  machines  since  introduced,  seem  to  have  copied 
your  machine  in  all  its  essential  features. 

I  am  respectfully  yours. 

John  I^.  Canfield. 

The  next  letter,  we  copy  from  the  Genessee  Farmer  of  Decem- 
ber 6th,  1834.  The  reader  will  readily  perceive  that  the  author, 
Wm.  C.  Dwight,  knew  how  to  handle  the  pen  as  well  as  the  plow, 
and  etiually  well  to  work  the  reaper,  being  a  practical  farmer. 
But  we  are  pained  to  add  that  he  lost  his  life  by  the  fatal  railroad 
accident  at  Norwalk,  Ct.  about  a  year  since. 

From  the  Genessee  F"armer.  Dec.  6,  1834. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Genessee  Fariner: 

I  wrote  you  last  May  that  Mr.  Hiissey,  the  inventor  of  a  machine 
for  harvesting  wheat,  had  left  in  this  village  one  of  his  machines  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  our  farmers  an  opportunity  to  test  its  value, 
and  I  promised  to  write  )'ou  further  about  it  when  it  had  been  put 
to  use.  For  many  reasons  which  will  not  interest  either  yourself  or  the 
public,  the  matter  has  been  delayed  till  the  first  rainy  day.  after  my 
fall  work  was  out  of  the  way,  should  give  leisure  to  remember  and 
fultll  my  promise. 


24  BRIEF    NARRATIVE    OF    THE 

The  machine  has  been  fully  tried,  and  I  am  gratified  to  be  able 
to  say,  that  it  has  fully  succeeded;  hundreds  of  farmers  from  the 
different  towns  of  this  and  the  adjoining  counties,  have  witnessed 
its  operations,  and  all  have  not  only  expressed  their  confidence  in  its 
success,  but  their  gratification  in  the  perfection  of  the  work. 

As  every  inquirer  asks  the  same  series  of  questions,  I  presume 
your  readers  will  have  a  like  course  of  thought,  and  wish  for  satisfac- 
tion in  the  same  particulars.  To  give  them  this,  I  will  write  them 
in  their  order,  and  give  the  answers: 

Does  the  machine  make  clean  work? 

It  saves  all  the  grain.  To  use  the  language  of  a  gratified  looker-on, 
an  old  and  experienced  farmer,  "  it  cheats  the  hogs."* 

Does  the  machine  expedite  the  work? 

What  the  machine  is  capable  of  accomplishing,  we  who  have  used 
it  can  hardly  say,  as  we  had  no  field  in  fit  order,  large  enough  for 
a  fair  trial  thro'  a  whole  day;  and  can  only  say  what  it  has  done. 
Five  acres  of  heavy  wheat,  on  the  Genessee  flats,  were  harvested 
in  two  hours  and  a  quarter. 

In  what  condition  is  the  wheat  left,  and  how  is  the  work  done 
where  the  wheat  is  lodged? 

The  machine  leaves  the  wheat  in  gavels  large  enough  for  a  sheaf, 
and  where  grain  stands  well  enough  to  make  fair  work  with  the  cradle, 
it  leaves  the  straw  in  as  good  condition  to  bind  as  the  gavels  of  a  good 
reaper.  Whether  the  grain  stands  or  is  lodged  is  of  little  consequence, 
except  as  to  the  appearance  of  the  sheaf,  and  the  necessity  of  saving 
more  straw,  when  lodged,  than  is  desirable.  The  condition  of  the 
sheaf  when  the  grain  is  lodged  depends  much  upon  the  adroitness 
of  the  raker. 

What  number  of  hands,  and  what  strength  of  team  is  necessary 
to  manage  the  machine  advantageously? 

Two  men,  one  to  drive  the  team  and  the  other  to  rake  off  the 
wheat,  and  two  horses,  work  the  machine;  but  when  the  grain  is  heavy, 
or  the  land  mellow,  a  change  of  horses  is  necessary,  as  the  gait  of  the 
horses  is  too  rapid  to  admit  of  heavy  draft  The  horses  go  at  the  rate 
of  four  to  five  miles  an  hour,  and  when  the  growth  of  straw  is  not 
heavy  a  fair  trot  of  the  team  is  not  too  much. 

Is  the  machine  liable  to  derangement  and  destruction  from  its 
own  motion? 

This  is  a  question  which  cannot  be  so  directly  answered  as  the 
others.  We  have  only  used  the  machine  to  cut  about  fifty  acres, 
and  have  had  no  trouble;  judging  from  appearances  so  far,  should 
say  it  was  as  little  subject  to  this  evil  as  any  machinery  whatever. 
The  wear  upon  the  cutting  part  being  so  little  as  to  require  not  more 
than  fifteen  minutes  sharpening  in  a  day;  there  is  no  loss  of  time 
on  this  score. 

Is  the  sheaf  a  good  one  to  thresh? 

The  man  who  has  fed  the  threshing  machine  with  the  grain 
of   twenty  acres   cut  by  this   machine,  says  the   sheaves   are    much 

*  The  hogs  are  the  gleaners  in  this  section  of  country. 


INVENTION    f)F    REAPING    MACHINES.  25 

better   than    those    of    cradled    grain,    and    quite    as    good    as    those 
of  a  reaper. 

There  is  one  more  advantaf^^c  beyond  ordinary  inquiries,  of  conse- 
quence, where  so  much  grain  is  raised  as  in  this  valley;  be  the  grain 
ever  so  ripe,  there  is  no  waste  of  grain  by  any  agitation  of  the  straw, 
and  all  the  waste  which  can  take  place  must  arise  from  the  handling 
and  shaking  in  binding. 

I  am  yours,  &c. 

W'm.C.  Dwight. 
Moscow,  Livingston  Co.  N.  V.,  Nov.  14,  1834. 

N.  B.  The  machine  we  used  was  intended  only  for  upland,  but 
Dy  some  little  alterations  and  additions  we  used  it  with  equal  facility 
on  all  kinds  of  soil;  and  it  can  be  used  on  any  farm  so  clean  from 
stumps  and  stones  as  not  to  endanger  the  blocking  the  wheels. 

The  following  letter  is  evidence  for  1835,  and  also  refers  to  the 
originality  of  the  invention  by  O.  Hussey. 

P.XLMVRA,  Mo..  ^/(C-  M.  1854. 

Friend  Ilussey  —  Yours  duly  received.  As  to  the  machines  sent 
by  you  (ordered  some  two  years  since)  they  both  worked  well. 

Before  you  had  invented  your  machine  in  1831  or  1832,  your 
attention  was  drawn  to  a  mode  of  cutting  grain,  hemp,  and  grass, 
and  you  told  me  you  thought  you  could  invent  such  a  machine 
to  be  drawn  by  horses;  and  after  you  had  returned  to  Cincinnati 
from  Laurcnceburg,  you  wrote  me  a  letter  in  '32  or  at  the  furthest 
in  '33  (for  I  left  Indiana  2nd  Oct.  1833)  with  a  draft  and  description 
of  a  plan  for  cutting  grain.  The  draft  was  thus  (here  follows  a  diagram 
of  the  cutting  apparatus  exactly  as  described  by  the  patent)  and  the 
description  was,  that  these  kni\'es  were  to  work  by  the  motion  of  the 
wheels,  being  a  perfect  description  of  the  invented  principle. 

As  soon  as  I  saw  the  plan,  I  was  satisfied  of  its  success  and  wrote 
to  you  that  there  was  no  doubt  of  the  success  of  your  machine;  that 
it  was  astonishing  the  world  had  so  many  thousand  years  been  confined 
to  the  sickle  when  so  obvious  a  mode  of  cutting  grain  and  grass  existed; 
and  shortly  after  you  obtained  a  patent  for  the  machine. 

On  the  6th  July,  1835,  yo'-^  brought  to  Palmyra  two  of  your 
machines,  and  they  were  put  in  operation  near  this  place  —  one 
in  a  meadow  between  here  and  Philadelphia,  and  one  in  the  heavy 
grass  in  Marion  City  bottom.*  The  machines  did  cut  well.  I  was 
the  editor  of  the  Missouri  Courier,  from  the  month  of  November,  1833, 
until  1838,  and  brought  your  machine  before  the  public;  it  excited 
much  attention,  and  its  performance  was  highly  satisfactory.  The 
results  of  the  trials  were  published  in  the  paper  by  me  in  August 
or  September,  1835.  I  knew  of  the  capacit)-  of  the  machine,  and  that 
it  did  so  execute  in  the  bottom  three  acres  an  hour.  In  this  I  cannot 
be  mistaken,  for  I  felt  at  the  time  the  deepest  interest  in  the  success 

*  Both  of  these  machines  were  sold  to  Wni.  Muldrow,  Agent,  of  Marion  College, 
Marion  county.  Mo. 


26  ■  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF    THE 

of  the  machine.  Air.  McEhoy  is  dead,  where  you  boarded,  and  also 
Samuel  Muldrow  and  James  Muldrow.  Still  I  will  inquire  if  any 
persons  can  be  found  who  were  present. 

I  know  the  results,  and  recollect  distinctly  the  reception  the 
machines  met  with,  and  the  prices,  to  wit:  Si 50  each.  Muldrow  bought 
another  for  S500  —  which  was  a  whirling  wheel.  You  recollect  it: 
it  never  run  any.  Yours,  I  know  it  was  said  then,  would  cut  off  brush 
large  enough  for  a  hoop-pole.  Court  is  now  in  session,  but  as  soon 
as  I  can  ascertain  the  witnesses  (at  the  exhibition)  I  will  write  you 
further.  But  my  recollection  is  distinct,  from  the  relations  existing 
between  us,  my  interest  in  machinery  generally,  and  my  position 
as  editor  of  the  only  paper  of  this  section  of  country. 

As  ever,  your  friend, 

Edwin  G.  Pratt. 


In  1836,  O.  Hussey  visited  Maryland  at  the  written  solicitation  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  of  The  Maryland  Agricultural  Society,  for 
the  Eastern  Shore.  The  fame  of  his  reaping  exploits  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  and  the  far  West,  had  reached  the  East;  though  with 
something  like  a  "  snail's  pace."  We  had  not  then  the  Magnetic  Tele- 
graph, which  with  lightning  speed  enables  the  East  to  talk  with  the 
West;  nor  even  the  "iron  horse,"  by  whose  speed  and  power,  the 
reaper  that  cut  a  large  crop  of  wheat  in  Maryland,  could  within  the  same 
week,  cut  another  equally  large  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi;  but  it 
then  required  some  two  to  \.\\xcq  years  to  prepare  the  public  mind  for 
the  reception  of  the  machine  here;  and  owing  to  the  limited  means  of 
the  inventor,  the  transportation  from  place  to  place  was  often  done 
by  a  single  horse;  accompanied  by  the  inventor  foot-sore  and  weary 
from  walking  hundreds  of  miles! 

The  annexed  certificate  was  given,  published,  and  widely  circu- 
lated after  a  full  trial  of  the  machine,  in  cutting  more  than  two  hun- 
dred acres,  and  by  large  farmers  and  practical  men,  known  throughout 
the  State.  Comment  is  unnecessary  on  such  a  paper;  but  we  feel 
bound  to  state  that  it  was  mainly  owing  to  the  exertions  of  the  liberal 
public  spirited  gentlemen,  the  last,  though  not  the  least  of  the  signers, 
Gen.  Tench  Tilghman,  that  the  Reaper  was  then  introduced  into  this 
State,  He  was  the  early  and  steadfast  friend  of  the  Patentee,  and  to 
the  cause  of  agricultural  improvement  in  our  State.  Strange  as  it  may 
appear  to  many  at  the  present  day,  and  notwithstanding  these  demon- 
strations in  Ohio,  Illinois,  New  York,  Missouri  and  Maryland,  which 
did  not  admit  of  cavil  or  doubt  as  to  the  entire  efficiency  and  success 
of  Hussey's  reaper,  scarcely  a  farmer  could  be  found  ready  and  willing 
to  take  hold  of  it,  and  aid  the  Inventor  in  introducing  it  into  use.  But 
farmers  as  a  class  are  proverbially  cautious,  and  disinclined  to  change 
from  established  customs  and  usages;  it  often  requires  "  line  upon 
line  and  precept  upon  precept,"  aided  too,  by  almost  a  free  gift  of  the 
article,  to  induce  them  even  to  give  a  new  agricultural  implement  a 
fair  trial, — a  plough  for  instance,  that  will  do  better  work,  with  a  fourth 


INVENTION    OF    RKAl-INC;    MACHINKS. 


to  a  tliiiel  less  drauL,MU;  the  old  and  nearly  worn  out  implement  "  does 
well  enouL^h."  Gen.  T.  was,  we  believe,  the  first  farmer  in  Maryland 
to  use,  and  purchase  a  reapin<T  machine;  and  by  so  doiny,  to  aid  the 
inventive  cj^enius  and  talent  of  his  countrymen,  and  also  at  the  same 
time  greatly  to  benefit  the  interest  of  his  brother  farmers.  It  avails 
little  to  the  iiucntor,  or  the  i)ublic,  how  valuable  his  im]>rovement  may 
be, — for  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  the  inventor  is  limited  in  means — if 
none  can  be  found  who  are  both  able  and  willin<^  to  lend  a  helpin<:^ 
hand  to  modest  merit;  for  true  genius  is  ever  modest;  and  unfortu- 
nately the  term  is  too  often  synonymous  with  penury  and  want. 

Very  few  of  the  really  valuable  inventions  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the 
inventors, — even  to  a  tithe  of  the  profits  that  are  occasionally  realized. 
His  necessities  often  compel  him  to  a  forced  sale  of  his  Patent  right 
to  some  capitalist  who  has  the  tact  to  turn  other  men's  wits  to  his  own 
advantage;  or  the  Public, — which  sim[)ly  means  other  capitalists  of 
another  description,  who  possess  little  or  no  inventive  genius  them- 
selves, and  just  about  as  much  principle  as  genius — seize  upon  the 
invention,  and  often  in  spite  of  law,  justice,  or  right,  reap  the  reward 
justly  due  to  another. 

This  however,  is  a  digression  for  which  we  beg  the  reader's  par- 
don; but  we  could  not  let  the  occasion  pass,  without  rendering  this 
honest  tribute  to  the  public  spirited  farmer,  v.'ho  had  the  discernment 
to  perceive  its  merits,  and  the  liberality  to  aid  its  introduction,  of  one 
of  the  most  valuable  improvements  of  this,  or  any  age. 


REPORT  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  "  The  Maryland  /Xgricultural 
Society,"  for  the  Eastern  Shore,  on  the  Machine  for  Harvesting 
Small  Grain,  invented  by  Mr.  Obed  Hussey  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
—  Trial  for  Harvest  of  iSj6. 

The  favorable  accounts  of  the  operation  of  this  implement,  in  sev- 
eral of  the  Western  States,  induced  the  Board  to  invite  Mr.  Hussey  to 
bring  it  to  Mar}-land  and  submit  it  to  their  insj:)ection.  It  was  accord- 
ingly exhibited  in  Oxford,  Talbot  Co.,  on  the  first  of  July,  in  presence 
of  the  Board  and  a  considerable  number  of  other  gentlemen.  Its  per- 
formance may  justly  be  denominated  perfect,  as  it  cuts  every  spear  of 
grain,  collects  it  in  bunches  of  the  proper  size  for  sheaves,  and  la\-s  it 
straight  and  even  for  the  binders.  On  the  I2th  July,  a  public  exhibi- 
tion was  made  at  Easton,  under  the  direction  of  the  Board;  several 
hundred  persons,  principally  farmers,  assembled  to  witness  it,  and 
expressed  themselves  as  highly  satisfied  with  the  result.  At  the 
Trappe,  where  it  was  shown  by  the  Inventor  on  the  following  Saturday, 
an  equal  degree  of  approbation  was  e\inced.  It  was  afterwards  used 
on  the  farm  of  Mr.  Tench  Tilghman,  where  i8o  acres  of  wheat,  oats, 
and  barley  were  cut  with  it.  Three  mules  of  medium  size  worked  in  it 
constantly  with  as  much  ease  as  in  a  drag  harrow.  They  moved  with 
equal  facility  in  a  walk  or  trot.     A  concise  description   of  this  simple 


28  BRIEF    NARKATIVE    OF    THE 

implement  will  show  that  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  important 
purpose  for  which  it  was  invented.  Resting  on  two  wheels  which  are 
permanently  attached  to  the  machine  and  impart  the  motion  to  the 
whole,  the  main  body  of  the  machine  is  drawn  by  the  horses  along  the 
outer  edge  of  the  standing  grain.  As  the  horses  travel  on  the  outside 
of  the  grain,  it  is  neither  knocked  down  or  tangled  in  the  slightest 
degree.  Behind  the  wheels  is  a  platform,  (supported  by  a  roller  or 
wliecl. )  which  projects  beyond  the  side  of  the  machine  five  feet  into 
the  grain.  On  the  front  of  the  edge  projecting  part  of  the  platform  is 
the  cutter.  This  is  composed  of  twenty-one  teeth  resembling  large 
lancet  blades,  which  are  placed  side  by  side  and  firmly  rivetted  to  a  rod 
of  iron.  A  lateral  motion  is  imparted  to  it  by  a  crank,  causing  it 
to  vibrate  between  two  rows  of  iron  spikes,  which  point  forward.  As 
the  machine  advances  the  grain  is  cut  and  falls  backwards  on  the  plat- 
form where  it  collects  in  a  pile.  A  man  is  placed  on  the  part  of  the 
platform  directly  behind  the  horses,  and  with  a  rake  of  peculiar  con- 
struction, pushes  off  the  grain  in  separate  bunches,  each  bunch  mak- 
ing a  sheaf.  It  may  appear  to  some  that  the  grain  will  accumulate  too 
rapidly  for  this  man  to  perform  his  duty.  But  upon  considering  the 
difference  between  the  space  occupied  by  the  grain  when  standing 
and  when  lying  in  a  pile  after  it  is  cut,  it  will  be  evident  that  the  raker 
has  ample  time  to  push  off  the. bunches  even  in  the  thickest  grain.  In 
thin  grain  he  has  to  wait  until  suf^cient  has  collected  to  form  a  sheaf. 

The  machine  is  driven  around  the  grain,  which  may  be  sown 
either  on  a  smooth  surface  or  on  corn  ridges.  For  the  first  round  a 
way  may  be  cleared  with  a  cradle;  but  this  is  deemed  unnecessary,  for 
the  grain  when  driven  over,  is  left  in  an  inclined  position,  and  by  cut- 
ting in  the  opposite  direction  as  much  of  it  is  saved  as  with  a  cradle. 
Fourteen  acres  in  corn  lands  were  cut  between  lo  A.  M.,  and  7)4  P.^  M. 
The  hands  had  never  worked  with  the  machine  before,  nor  was  it  a 
trial  day's  work  For  owing  to  the  shortness  of  the  straw,  the  machine 
was  not  allowed  to  cut  when  passing  over  the  ridges  from  one  side  of 
the  ground  to  the  other,  and  this  time  was  consequently  lost.  From 
the  principle  on  which  the  cutting  is  performed,  a  keen  edge  to  the 
cutter  is  by  no  means  essential.  The  toughest  weeds,  an  occasional 
corn  stalk  or  a  stick  of  the  thickness  of  a  man's  little  finger,  have  been 
frequently  cut  without  at  all  affecting  its  operation;  it  can  be  sharp- 
ened, however,  in  a  few  minutes  with  a  file.  The  width  of  the  swath 
may  be  increased  by  having  the  cutter  made  longer,  and  the  same 
machine  will  cut  a  stubble  of  several  different  heights. 

There  is  ample  room  to  make  the  different  parts  of  any  size, 
though  the  strength  of  every  part  has  been  fully  tested.  The  machirie 
has  been  often  choked  by  oyster-shells  getting  into  the  cutter,  in 
attempting  to  cut  too  low  a  stubble.  The  motion  of  the  machinery 
being  checked,  the  main  wheels  slide  on  the  ground;  the  strain  on 
every  part  being  equal  to  the  power  exerted  by  the  horses.  It  can  be 
managed  by  any  intelligent  careful  negro.  We  deem  it  a  simple, 
strong, and  effective  machine,  and  take   much    pleasure   in  awarding 


INVENTION    OK    KKAI'ING    MACllINKS.  29 

unanimously  the   meritorious   inventor  of  it  a   handsome   pair  of  sil- 
ver cups.  ROBT.  H.   GOLUSBOROUGH. 

SAMUEL  STEVENS, 
SAME.  T.  KEXXARD, 
ROBT.  BANNING, 
SAME.  HAMBEETON,  Sr. 
NICHE.  GOEDSBOROUGH, 
ED.  N.  HAMBE1:T()N, 
JAMES  EL    CHAMlih:REAIN, 
MARTIN  GOEDSBURUUGII. 
HORATIO  E.  EDMONDSON, 
TENCH  TIEGHiMAN. 


The  following  three  letters  not  only  embrace  the  year  1837,  but 
are  equally  i^ood  evidence  from  that  period  to  the  present,  1854.  As 
they  are  short,  and  to  the  point,  we  use  them  all.  The  very  appropri- 
ate and  just  remarks  of  Col.  Hughes  as  regards  the  rights,  and  what  is 
due  to  inventive  talent,  we  most  cordially  respond  to;  as  must  every 
right  minded  and  disinterested  reader.  He  refers  to  Col.  Edw.  Eloyd 
of  "  Wye  House"  as  the  largest  wheat  grower  in  Maryland;  we  much 
doubt  if  he  is  not  the  largest  in  the  Union.  Several  years  since,  he 
informed  us  that  his  average  crop  of  wheat  was  from  33  to  35  thousand 
bushels;  and  a  year  or  two  ago  we  learned  that  the  crop  exceeded 
forty  thousand  bushels.  He  now,  and  for  many  years  past  has  used 
Hussey's  Reaper  exclusively.  More  satisfactory  and  conclusive  evi- 
dence cannot  be  given,  or  desired,  than  is  afforded  in  these  three  let- 
ters, of  the  early  use,  and  long  proved  efficiency  of  the  invention. 

HoRXEWOOD,  E.  Shore,  Md.,  Aug.  22,  '54. 

Dear  Sir: — In  reply  to  your  enquiry  whether  I  recollect  the  time, 
and  the  success  of  your  reaping  machine  at  my  father's  in  1837,  I 
answer  that  I  do  perfectl}';  and  also  seeing  it  in  operation  in  company 
with  my  friend  Mr.  J.  II.  Euckett,  of  Balto.,  at  Col.  H.  E.  Edmondson's 
of  Talbot  Co.  the  same  season. 

My  father  expressetl  himself  highly  satisfied  with  the  perform- 
ance of  the  reaper,  as  did  other  gentlemen  who  saw  it  in  operation  at 
Cheston.  So  well  convinced  was  my  father  of  the  value  of  the 
machine,  that  he  offered  you  a  considerable  advance  per  acre  on  your 
charge  for  cutting,  to  remain  and  reap  his  two  fields,  say  125  to  130 
acres,  which  you  declined,  owing  to  prior  engagements.  At  an  early 
date  after  this  trial,  my  father  secured  one  of  your  reapers,  and  the  farm 
has  since  never  been  without. 

My  brother  Dr.  DeCourcy  has  now  one  which  did  its  work  most 
excellently  well  this  past  harvest,  and  without  any  stoppage.  With 
some  trivial  repairs,  it  has  been  in  successful  use  nearly  ten  years. 

Wishing  you  every  possible  success  with  your  reaper,  for  which 
the  agricultural  community  owe  you  a  heavy  debt, 

I  am  respectfulh',  yours, 

N.  H.  RoziER  DeCourcey. 


30  BRIEF   NARRATIVE   OF   THE 

Baltimore,  October  17th,  1854. 
To  Obcd  Hjissey,  Esq. 

Sir — In  the  harvest  of  1837  I  saw  one  of  your  Reapers  in  opera- 
tion in  my  neighborhood  [West  River,  Anne  Arundel  Co.,  Md.]  in 
charge  of'the  Hon.  John  C.  VVeems,  who  I  believe  was  the  owner  of  it; 
and  was  so  much  pleased  with  its  performance,  that  I  ordered  one 
from  you  in  the  following  year,  1838,  which  you  set  in  motion  for  me. 
It  worked  most  admirably,  and  fully  met  my  expectations;  as  it  has 
do7ic  from  that  early  period  to  the  present  day. 

In  a  loose  way,  I  estimated  that  in  the  saving  of  labour,  and  grain 
from  shattering,  it  nearly  or  quite  paid  for  itself  the  first  harvest.  Since 
then  the  machine  has  been  much  improved. 

Up  to  the  time  I  purchased,  very  few  had  been  used  in  this  State. 
The  first,  as  I  have  always  understood,  was  bought  by  that  intelligent 
and  enterprising  farmer,  Gen.  Tench  Tilghman,  of  Oxford,  Talbot 
County.  In  1838,  Col.  Edward  Lloyd,  of  "Wye,"  Talbot  Co.,  the  largest 
wheat  grower  in  Maryland,  and  myself,  as  above  mentioned,  availed 
ourselves  of  your  invention;  but  I  did  not  hear  of  any  other  orders  for 
it  in  this  State.  It  came,  like  most  other  agricultural  implements, 
slowly  into  use;  and  I  fear  has  not  fairly  compensated  you  for  the 
labor  and  ingenuity  bestowed  upon  it.  This,  however,  is  too  often  the 
fate  of  discoverers  and  inventors;  and  others  reap  the  fruits  of  their 
toil  and  genius.  I  have  long  thought  that  governments  were  unjust  to 
inventors;  and  could  never  understand  why  a  man  ha«  not  the  same 
right  of  property  to  a  machine  conceived  in  his  head,  and  con- 
structed by  his  hands,  as  to  that  acquired  in  any  other  manner.  The 
same  that  a  farmer  has  to  the  lands  he  owns. 

Very  respectfully,  y'r  ob't  serv't, 

Geo.  W.  Hughes. 


Oxford,  Md.,  Sept.  22d,  1854. 

Mr.  Obed  Hussey : 

Dear  Sir: — I  recently  received  from  the  Commissioner  of  Patents 
the  Report  on  Mechanics  for  1853,  and  have  examined  with  much 
interest  the  descriptions  of  what  claim  to  be  improvements  in  the 
Reaping  Machine. 

1  was  rather  surprised  to  find  that  so  many  of  them  were  almost 
identical  with  the  notions  which  were  tried  and  rejected  during  the 
season  5'ou  spent  with  m.e  nearly  twenty  years  ago;  when  for  the  first 
time,  (I  believe,)  a  reaper  was  used  throughout  our  entire  harvest,  on 
a  farm  as  large  as  six  hundred  acres. 

You  had  just  then  arrived  from  Cincinnati  with  two  machines — one 
a  reaper,  and  the  other  a  reaper  and  mower. 

They  were  exhibited  publicly  at  Oxford  and  Easton,  and  their 
operation  on  wheat  gave  entire  satisfaction.  The  work  throughout  the 
harvest  was  equally  well  done;  the  only  objection  being  the  delay 
caused  by  repairing  the  machinery,  a  dif^culty  common  to  all  new 
machines  of  much  power  at  that  period. 

Since  then,  I  have  used  one  or  more  reapers  every  year,  and  have 


INVENTlDN    OK    KKAl'lNCi    MACHINES.  -il 

watched  with  much  interest  the  progress  of  their  improvement.  I  have 
examined  most  of  those  which  liave  the  best  reputation,  and  do  not 
believe  there  is  a  single  one  in  which  the  cutting  principle  has  not  been 
copied  from  yours. 

In  attempting  to  avoid  an  infringement  of  your  [)atent,  variations 
have  been  made  cither  in  the  cutting  ajiparatus,  or  the  driving  machin- 
ery, by  which  they  have  been  made  more  complicated  and  less  effi- 
cient. Burrall's,  which  approaches  nearest  to  yours  in  simplicity  and 
efficiency,  is  so  close  a  copy,  that  1  do  not  sec  how  the  courts  could 
refuse  an  injunction  to  prohibit  the  use  of  it.  The  only  material  differ- 
ence is  the  attempt  at  a  side  delivery  which  was  tried  by  you  on  your 
first  machine,  and  proved  an  entire  failure. 

Believing  sincerely  that  the  farmers  of  the  U.  S.  owe  you  a  debt  of 
gratitude,  which  a  regard  for  themselves  should  prompt  them  to  pay, 
and  understanding  that  attempts  have  been  made  to  question  even  the 
priority  of  your  in\'ention,  I  send  you  a  volume  of  the  Genessee 
Farmer  published  in  1834,  which  will  show  the  opinion  entertained  at 
that  time  by  the  farmers  of  that  celebrated  wheat  growing  region,  both 
as  to  the  efficiency  and  priority  of  your  reaper. 

Your  ob't  serv't, 

Tench  Tilghm.an. 


As  we  have  already  much  exceeded  the  intended  limits  of  the 
narrative,  we  might,  perhaps,  with  propriety,  here  rest  the  Enquiry, 
having  as  we  think  satisfactorily  shown,  and  by  evidence  that  cannot 
be  disproved;  first,  that  for  a  period  of  9  or  10  years  after  the  alleged 
invention  of  the  reaper  by  C.  H.  McCormick  in  '31,  he  did  not  sell  a 
single  machine;  nor  could  he  establish  by  all  the  evidence  adduced 
before  the  Board  of  Extensions,  in  1848,  that  prior  to  1840  or  1841,  was 
his  reaper  in  any  degree  an  effective  or  practical  machine;  for  as  he 
himself  states  in  the  letter  to  Philip  Pusey,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  it  was  not  until 
very  material  alterations — all  essential  it  may  be  said — were  made, 
some  6  or  8  years  after  the  date  of  the  patent,  could  the  machine  be 
made  to  work  even  tolerably  well.  Indeed,  he  states,  "  I  may  say  thc\- 
were  not  of  much  practical  value,  until  the  improvements  of  my 
second  patent  in  1S45,"  being  eleven  years  after  the  date  of  the  patent, 
and  fourteen  }'ears  after  the  alleged  invention  in  1831. 

On  the  other  hand  we  have  shown  by  as  good  and  respectable  testi- 
mony as  can  be  had  in  any  cause,  that  from  1833  to  1854,  a  period  of 
twenty-one  years,  Hussey's  invention  was  most  efficient  and  satis- 
factory, every  year ;  not  by  cutting  a  patch  of  the  fraction  of  an  acre, 
but  by  reaping  hundreds,  nay  thousands  of  acres  annually,  by  the  few- 
machines  i)laced  in  the  hands  of  the  farmers  from  '33  to  '40. 

As  however,  we  ha\e  given  no  direct  evidence  from  Delaware,  or 
Virginia,  none  from  North  Carolina,  and  but  one  from  New  York,  we 
annex  a  few  short  testimonials  from  each,  that  embrace  the  period 
from  1838  to  1845;  ^"^^  \\'\\\\  a  few  more  of  the  same  respectable  char- 
acter up  to  1853,  both  in  this  country  and  in  England,  we  will  leave 
the  decision  of  the  question  to  the  intelligent  reader. — We  will  how- 


32  BRIEF   NARRATIVE   OF   THE 


ever, 


^,_.-,  call  the  reader's  attention  to  the  concluding  paragraph  of  Maj.  J. 
Jones'  letter,  from  Delaware — one  of  the  smallest  States,  but  contain- 
ing as  large  a  proportion  of  noble  minded,  talented  men,  and  as  good 
practical  farmers,  as  any  in  the  Union* 

It  will   be   perceived  that  a  Reaper  sold  in  1838  to  the  St.  George's, 


it  was  in  our  power  to  state,  how  many  times  seven  hundred  acres,  this 
single  machine  had  reaped  since  1838. 


Wheatland,  Del.  July  21,  1845. 
Mr.  Hnssc\ — Dear  Sir:  I  have  just  finished  cutting  my  oats;  I 
finished  cutting  my  wheat  on  the  28th  of  June,  having  cut  over  160 
acres,  excepting  what  was  cut  by  a  cradle  in  opening  tracks  for  the  horses 
and  rounding  "^the  corners  so  that  the  machine  might  sweep  round 
without  loss  of  time  in  turning,  which  it  did  with  ease  and  certainty, 
cutting  more  than  20  acres  a  day  on  an  average.  A  part  of  the  wheat 
was  so  heavy  as  to  require  three  active  shockers  to  keep  up  with  the 
cutting;  the  whole  cost  of  all  necessary  repairs  3 1  yi  cents  for  the  harvest. 

Of  the  two  machines  which  I  purchased  of  you,  I  used  the  large 
one,  having  sold  the  small  one  to  Richard  Millwood,  who  rents  the 
farm  of  Dr.  Noble.  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  I  could  find  no  land- 
holder in  the  vicinity  who  had  enterprise  enough  to  risk  the  purchase 
of  that  machine  until  they  could  see  it  work;  but  after  the  perform- 
ance was  once  witnessed,  the  impression  it  made  was  such  as  to  justify 
me  in  ordering  you  to  have  ten  ready  by  next  harvest  for  New  Castle 
County,  Del.  Mr.  Millwood's  wheat  was  very  heavy,  one  measured 
acre  having  60  dozen  sheaves  upon  it,  and  the  whole  cutting  time  on 
the  40  acre  field  was  but  two  days,  making  for  the  small  machine  a 
full  average  of  20  acres  per  day,  without  any  repairing  or  accident. 
None  of  the  hands  who  worked  it  had  ever  seen  such  a  machine  before 
those  you  sent  to  me  My  crop  has  not  all  passed  through  the  half 
bushel  yet,  but  it  will  fall  but  little  short  of  3000  bushels— I  expect  it 
will  all  be  in  market  to-morrow. 

In  conversation  with  Col.  Vandergrift,  the  present  owner  of  the 
Reaper  you  sold  to  the  St.  George  and  Appoquinomick  Agricultural 
Society,  in  1838,  he  told  me  that  he  had  cut  about  700  acres  of  wheat 
and  oats  with  it  since  he  owned  it,  and  up  to  that  time  the  cost  of 
repairs  had  been  Si. 25  for  every  hundred  acres  cut.  It  was  then  in 
good  repair.  Yours, 

John  Jones. 


*It  is  reported  of  one  of  her  sons,  that  during  the  struggle  for  Independence, 
when  a  Delegate  to  the  Convention  from  one  of  the  largest  and  most  powerful 
Colonies  was  ready  to  quail  and  almost  despair  of  success  in  the  unequal  contest,  he 
was  encouraged  and  cheered  on  by  a  member  from  little  Delaware;  and  told,  that 
when  he  found  his  Colony  likely  to  be  overrun  by  the  enemy,  to  call  on  Delaware  for 
aid— she  would  lend  a  helping  hand, 


INVENTION   OK    KEAI'ING    MAtHINKS.  33 


Jefferson  County,  Va.,  Aug.  9th,  1845. 
To  Mr.  Obcd  Hussey — Dear  Sir:  We  the  undersigned  having  used  your 
Reaping  machine  during  the  recent  harvest  in  cutting  our  respective 
crops,  take  great  pleasure  in  tendering  to  you  this  voluntary  testimonial 
of  the  very  high  estimation  in  which  we  hold  your  invention.  We  ha\  e 
now  tried  your  machines  fully  and  fairly,  and  we  are  imanimous  in  the 
conclusion  that  in  every  case  the)'  have  borne  the  test  in  a  manner 
which  has  excited  our  highest  admiration  of  their  merits.  We  were 
particularly  pleased  with  their  work  in  lodged  grain;  they  cut  and 
gather  every  straw  with  the  utmost  case,  and  the  only  fault  at  all  that 
we  have  had  to  find  with  them  was  that  they  did  not  cut  wet  grain  with 
facility;  this  single  defect  however,  we  are  pleased  to  perceive  you 
have  completely  remedied  with  the  late  improvement  (with  open 
guards  to  the  knives,  &c.)  which  the  most  of  us  saw  at  work  in  Mr. 
Wm.  Butler's  field  cut  wet  grain  and  green  oats  as  \\ell  as  could  pos- 
sibly be  desired — it  will  also  cut  timothy  and  clover — so  that  now  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  recommending  your  Reaper,  as  we  hereby  most 
cordially  do,  to  our  brother  farmers,  as  the  most  complete  and  efficient 
in  agricultural  operations,  and  as  one  which,  whilst  from  its  simple 
and  substantial  construction,  is  not  liable  to  be  broken  or  to  get  out  of 
order,  will  at  the  same  time  save  its  owner  the  first  year  more  than  its 
original  cost. 

Wm.  Butler,  W.  G.  Butler, 

J.  H.  T.WLOR,  Jas.  S.  Markell, 

W.  Shortt,  V.  M.  Butler, 

Joseph  M'Murran,  Andrew  M'Intire, 

Daniel  G.  Henkle,  Adam  Smell, 

David  L.  Hensell,  George  Tabb, 

John  Marshall. 


Washington  County,  Aug.  7th,  1845. 
I  hereby  certify, that  I  have  used  Mr.  Obed  Hussey 's  Wheat  Cutter 
through  the  late  harvest,  and  that  it  answered  my  fullest  expectations, 
in  every  respect,  except  that  it  will  not  cut  when  the  wheat  is  dijuip 
from  rain  or  the  dcivs  of  the  fnorning.  I  cut  140  acres  of  wheat  with  it  in 
nine  days;  and  on  one  occasion,  cut  off  30  acres  in  18  hours,  from  day- 
light in  the  morning  until  ii  o'clock  the  next  day,  and  with  the  same 
4  horses,  never  having  changed  them  during  that  time. 

John  R.  D.\ll. 


Oaklands,  (near  Geneva,)  N.  Y.    ) 
26th  August,  1845.      ) 
Mr.  Obed  Hussey,  Baltimore — 

Dear  Sir:  Having  housed  all  the  grain  crops  of  this  farm,  it  is  due 
to  you  that  I  should  now  frankU'  admit  the  remo\al  of  all  my  doubts  in 
regard  to  the  effectiveness  and  excellence  of  your  "Rea[)ing  Machine." 
The  doubts  expressed  in  my  early  correspondence  with  >'Ou  arose 
from  the  many  abortive  attempts  in  this  country  and  in  England  to 
3 


KRIEK    NARRATIVE    OK    THE 


uroducc  a  Reapinj^  Machine,  possessing  power  and  simplicity  and  dur- 
ability; most  of  them  were  complicated,  and  proved  too  fragile. 

Soon  after  the  arrival  of  your  Machine,  I  tried  its  power  and 
became  readily  familiar  with  the  manner  of  using  it;  the  result  of  my 
experience  will  appear  from  the  following  facts: 

The  Wheat  Crop  of  this  farm  covered  104  acres,  producing  2,540 
shocks,  30,480  sheaves,  as  counted  on  the  ground,  and  again  when 
housed  in  the  Grain  barn  and  sheds. 

The  whole  crop  was  cut  by  your  Reaping  Machine,  in  eight  days, 
using  one  team,  a  boy  to  drive,  and  a  man  to  manage  the  machine. 

The  average  quantity  cut  per  day  was  13  acres. 

The  largest  quantity  cut  on  any  one  day,  was  17  acres. 

The  longest  period  for  working  the  machine  on  any  one  day  was 
nine  hours. 

Seven  men  were  stationed  on  the  field  to  bind  the  sheaves. 

The  cost  of  cutting  the  w  heat  with  )'our  machine  is  ti^'cnty-five  cents 
per  acre. 

The  total  cost  for  cutting,  raking,  binding  and  shocking, is  scventy- 
eight  cents,di\\d  a  fraction  per  acre. 

The  cost  may  be  stated  as  follows,  viz: 
A  man  and  team  for  8  days  at  1^1.50  per  day,  $12 

A  boy  to  drive   for  8  days  at  50  cts.  per  day,  4 

Interest  on  cost  of  Machine  and  for  wear  and  tear,  say  at 

10  per  cent.  10 


$26 

Which  is  equal  to  25  cents  per  acre  on  104  acres.  The  seven  men 
employed  to  rake  and  bind,  received  each  ^i  per  day  for  eight  days, 
say  $56 — which  sum  added  to  the  cost  for  cutting  or  reaping,  gives  a 
total  cost  of  S82 — or  78  88-100  cents  per  acre. 

I  have  compared  this  cost,  with  the  cost  paid  by  my  neighboring 
farmers  this  season,  and  find  it  vastly  in  favor  of  your  machine.  The 
individual  in  this  town  who  harvested  with  the  most  economy,  paid 
Si  13-100  per  acre — other  farmers  have  paid  from  $1  25-100  to  $2  per 
acre. 

Since  the  wheat  harvest, the  machine  has  cut  with  signal  advantage 
about  twenty  acres  of  oats. 

The  wheat  and  oats  were  cut  with  such  neatness  and  precision  that 
the  gleanings  were  not  suf^cient  to  pay  the  labor  of  raking. 

The  machine  remains  in  perfect  order;  and  did  not  fail  to  perform 
all  you  promised. 

I  deem  it  one  of  the  best  labor-saving  machines  ever  offered  for 
the  advantage  of  the  farmer;  its  effectiveness,  simple  and  durable  con- 
struction, have  been  witnessed  with  satisfaction  by  a  large  number  of 
my  neighbor  farmers.  Respectfully  yours, 

J.  Delafield. 

The  machine  alluded  to  in  the  above  letter  is  the  low  priced  one 
at  $100. 

For   1846,   '47  and  '48,  we   co[)y  from   the    Richmond    Planter   and 


INVENTION    OK    KI.AI'ING    MACHINES.  35 

American  Farmer; — and  all  from  North  Carolina,  though  the  evidence 
from  other  sections  is  much  more  extended,  and  e(iLiall\-  as  con- 
clusive: 

Somerset  Place,  Washington  Co.  ) 
N.  Carolina,  25th  Aug.    1847.      f 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Anierica/i  Farmer: 

Dear  Sir:— Yours  of  the  6th  ult.  arrived  at  my  residence  during  my 
absence,  in  consequence  of  which  I  was  unable  to  return  you  an 
answer  in  time  for  your  yXugust  No.  of  the  "American  Farmer." — I 
trust,  however,  the  delay  will  not  materially  affect  the  value  of  my 
communication.  In  conseciuence  of  the  recommendation  of  a  gentle- 
man who  had  used  "Hussey's  Reaper"  in  the  harvest  of  1846  with 
much  satisfaction,  I  was  induced  to  make  a  trial  of  one  the  present 
season.  It  was  put  in  operation  under  the  direction  and  supervision 
of  Mr.  Hussey  himself,  upon  a  field  of  reclaimed  low  ground,  origi- 
nally Cypress  Swamp,  which  of  course  could  only  be  cultivated  in 
beds — these  beds  were  six  feet  wide,  including  the  water-furrow 
between,  and  were  intersected  at  intervals  of  about  fifty  yards  by 
drains,  known  to  us  as  tap-ditches,  which  cross  the  water  furrows  at 
right  angles,  and  are  cut  from  two  to  four  inches  deeper  than  the 
furrows  themselves.  I  am  particular  in  describing  the  land,  as  I  had 
always  supposed  that  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  regular 
action  of  any  machine  would  be  found  in  the  irregularity  of  surface 
into  which  our  land  is  necessarily  thrown  by  our  system  of  culture. 
The  machine  surmounted  every  anticipated  difficulty,  and  was  emi- 
nently successful,  both  in  cutting  lengthwise  with  the  beds  and  across 
them.  The  wheat  was  cut  in  a  most  thorough  manner ;  nothing 
escaped  the  cutting  surfaces,  nor  did  weeds  or  any  other  obstruction 
of  the  kind  hinder  the  machine  from  doing  its  work  perfectly. 
During  the  running  of  the  machine  one  day  in  the  harvest,  17  acres  of 
wheat  were  cut  by  it* — this  was  done  by  using  relays  of  horses,  four 
at  each  time,  the  same  hands  being  employed  however,  and  the  work- 
ing time  was  twelve  hours. — After  a  heavy  rain  we  were  obliged  to 
abandon  the  use  of  the  machine,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  ground 
became  so  soft  that  the  "road  wheel"  as  it  is  termed,  buried  in  the 
soil,  and  would  become  clogged  with  mud.  This  difficulty  can,  I  have 
no  doubt,  be  easily  overcome  by  increasing  the  "tread"  of  this  wheel, 
and  making  some  slight  alteration  in  the  cogwheel  which  gears 
into  it. 

Some  two  years  since  I  saw  an  experiment  made  upon  an  adjoining 
estate  with  McCormick's  machine — it  cut  occasionally  well  where  the 
wheat  was  free  from  weeds,  but  any  obstruction  from  that  source 
would  immediately  choke  it,  when  of  course  the  wheat  would  be  over- 
run   without    being    cut — the   experiment    proved    a   failure,  and   the 

*When  Mr.  Hussey  was  with  me  I  informed  him  that  the  piece  of  wheat  cut  by 
the  machine  on  this  occasion  equalled  20  acres,  but  I  have  since  discovered  that  I 
had  been  mistaken  in  my  calculation  of  the  acre. 


86  BRIEF   NARRATIVE   OF   THE 

machine  was  laid  aside.  The  blade  in  this  machine  appears  to  me  to 
be  too  delicate  in  its  cutting  surface,  to  succeed,  except  under  the 
most  favorable  circumstances.  Quite  a  number  of  McCormick's  have 
been  in  use  in  this  part  of  the  country,  during  the  last  2  years,  and  to 
my  inquiries  concerning  them,  I  have  received  but  one  answer  and 
that  an  unfavorable  one.  The  few  of  Hussey's  machines,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  have  been  employed  within  my  ken,  have  in  each  instance 
given  entire  satisfaction— I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  when  well 
managed,  with  a  skilful  hand  at  the  rake,  in  dry  wheat,  I  do  not 
recommend  it  when  the  straw  is  wet,)  it  will,  as  compared  with 
ordinary  cutting,  save  per  acre  the  C7itire  expense  of  reaping,  from  the 
thorough  manner  in  which  every  stalk  is  cut,  thus  preventing  loss 
or  waste. 

Believing  as  I  do,  that  a  great  desideratum  to  those  who  grow 
wheat  upon  a  large  scale,  is  to  be  found  in  Mr.  Hussey's  Reaper,  I 
cannot  but  wish  that  both  he  and  they  may  reap  the  benefit  of  its 
general  adoption. 

I  am  sir,  very  respectfully  your  ob't  serv't, 

JosiAH  Collins. 


Edenton,  N.  C,  January  25th,  i! 
To  the  Editor  of  the  American  Farmer: 

Dear  Sir:— Some  months  ago  I  received  a  letter  from  you,  making 
enquiries  of  me,  relative  to  Hussey's  Reaping  Machine.  When  your 
letter  reached  me,  I  was  on  the  eve  of  leaving  home  for  the  summer, 
and  since  my  return  home,  my  engagements  have  been  of  such  a 
character  as  to  cause  me  until  the  present  to  neglect  replying  to  it. 

I  have  used  one  of  Hussey's  machines  one  season,  and  though 
under  circumstances  not  very  favorable  for  the  machine,  I  take 
pleasure  in  stating  that  its  operation  was  satisfactory.  During  my 
harvest,  which  was  about  three  weeks'  duration,  this  machine  was  kept 
constantly  at  work,  with  the  exception  of  a  day  and  a  half,  yet  I  did 
not  ascertain  how  many  acres  it  would  reap.  Mr.  Collins,  of  Lake 
Scuppernong,  also  used  one  last  season,  and  from  him  I  learned  that 
he  cut  upwards  of  20  acres  a  day. 

There  is  certainly  much  less  wheat  left  in  the  field  by  one  of  these 
machines,  than  is  by  the  ordinary  method  of  reaping  by  the  scythe  or 
reap  hook;  it  cuts  close,  lays  the  straw  smoothly,  thus  rendering  tying 
of  it  in  sheaves  much  easier. 

I  have  witnessed  McCormick's,  which  I  consider  a  poor  affair,  and 

meriting  no  consideration  except  a  dissent  from  me.     Many  of  this 

last  kind  of  reaper  found  their  way  here  a  few  years  ago;  they  now,  or 

rather  their  remains,  may  be  seen  lying  in  the  field  whence  they  will 

never  be  removed. 

Thos.  D.  Warren. 


INVENTION   OF    KKAPING   MACHINES.  87 

[From  the  Richnioiul  I'laiitcr. J 
HUSSEY'S  AND  M'CORMICK'S  REAPP:RS. 

It  is  very  painful  to  be  compelled  to  inflict  a  private  injury  in  the 
dischar_G^e  of  a  public  dut)-;  upon  a  particular  system  of  cultivation  we 
can  talk  and  write  without  restraint;  but  when  we  arc  called  on  to  dis- 
cuss the  merits  of  an  invention,  upon  which  the  fortunes  of  the  origi- 
nator may  absolutely  depend,  it  is  a  much  more  responsible  and 
delicate  office.  We  are  aware,  too,  that  in  introducing  a  subject  of  the 
kind,  we  are  opening  the  floodgates  of  a  controversy  that  is  often  hard 
to  close;  we  have  had  the  strongest  evidence  of  that  fact  in  the  con- 
troversy that  once  occurred  in  this  paper  between  Messrs.  IM'Cormick 
and  Hussey.  and  yet  it  is  to  the  relative  merits  of  the  reaping  machines 
of  these  two  gentlemen,  that  we  are  compelled  again  to  draw  the 
public  attention.  Probably  not  less  than  fifteen  thousand  dollars  has 
been  spent  in  Virginia  this  summer  for  reaping  machines,  and  it 
becomes  a  subject  of  great  importance  to  the  wheat  growing  com- 
munity at  least,  to  ascertain  how  such  a  sum  is  annually  to  be  dispensed 
to  the  greatest  advantage.  We  shall  express  no  opinion  ourself  in  the 
discussion  which  must  necessarily  follow  the  introduction  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  we  would  greatly  prefer  that  neither  of  the  gentlemen  more 
particularly  interested  in  the  subject  would  appear  in  our  columns. 
We  will  publish  statements  of  facts  for  either,  provided  they  are  made 
over  responsible  names,  and  are  short  and  perminent.  As  one  of  these 
facts  we  feel  bound  to  state,  that  we  acted  this  year  as  the  agent  for 
M'Cormick's  machine,  and  we  have  heard  great  complaint  of  the 
manner  in  which  it  was  gotten  up;  but  it  is  but  fair  also  to  state,  that 
we  believe  Mr.  M'Cormick  himself  has  been  superintending  the  manu- 
facture of  his  machine  in  the  State  of  N.  York,  and  that  probably  his 
work  has  not  been  as  well  done  as  it  would  have  been  could  he  have 
seen  to  it  in  person.  The  following  communication  is  altogether  in  favor 
of  Husscy's  machine: 

*'  I  have  had  in  operation  on  my  plantation  this  year  both  Hussey's 
and  M'Cormick's  reapers. — Now,  as  you  have  asked  me  to  furnish  the 
"Planter"  with  the  result  of  my  own  experience  and  opinion  as  to  the 
comparative  merit  of  the  two  machines,  it  is  now  at  your  service.  I 
have  had  them  both  in  operation  (as  the  weather  would  permit,)  for  the 
last  fortnight,  and  have  cut  with  the  two  rather  upwards  of  two 
hundred  acres  of  wheat.  Both  machines  have  been.  I  think  ver\-  fairly 
tested  in  all  qualities  of  grain,  from  wheat  five  feet  and  more  in  height, 
both  standing  up.  and  lodged  and  tangled,  and  averaging,  as  is  sup- 
posed, from  thirty  and  forty  bushels,  down  to  light  thin  wheat,  not 
averaging  more  than  four  bushels,  (being  some  galled  hills,)  and  I  am 
candidly  -^w^X  decidedly  oi  oy^\\-\\o\\  that  Hussey's  machine  \<,  vastly  supe- 
rior. I  deem  it  superior,  not  only  in  the  execution  of  its  work,  but  in 
the  durability  of  the  machine.  So  well  pleased  am  I  with  its  perform- 
ance, that  I  have  ordered  another  machine   of   Hussey's  for  my  next 


38  BRIEF   NAKKATIVE   OF   THE 

harvest,  and  also  one,  and  probably  two.  for  my  father's  plantation.  I 
consider  this  machine  invaluable  to  the  grower  of  wheat,  and  would 
recommend  every  farmer  who  grows  even  fifty  acres  of  wheat,  to  pur- 
chase one.  He  may  rest  assured  that  he  will  be  pleased  with  his  pur- 
chase.    I  shall  probably  be  in  Richmond  shortly. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

T.  Pollock  Burguyn. 

Occonichce  Wigwam,  near  Halifax,  N.  C.  June  20,  1846. 


For  1849  ^^'^  1850  we  will  return  and  see  how  the  Invention  pro- 
gresses on  the  broad  Prairies  and  fertile  lands  of  the  West,  where  it 
first  operated — in  1833  and  1834; — and  where  too,  although  the  most 
luxuriant  crops  are  ^rozv?i  with  comparatively  but  little  labor,  it  would 
in  many  cases  be  next  to  impossible  to  saz'e  tlicm,  without  the  aid  of 
this  invaluable  invention. 

These  certificates  embrace  the  mowing  of  large  crops  of  grass  as 
well  as  grain,  and  in  addition,  the  cutting  of  more  than  three  hundred 
acres  of" /'dV///' in  the  harvest  of  1849  a"^  1850,  by  "the  same  single 
machine." 

Husscy's  complete  success  in  cutting  grass  and  hemp,  was  no  new 
thing  ten  years  ago;  but  we  suppose,  like  the  grain  cutting,  in  the 
view  of  Philip  Pusey,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  "  lis  perfection  depended  on  rts  being 
new  only  in  England,"  full  eighteen  years  after  it  was  effected  in 
America, 


Blackberry,  Kane  county.  111.,  Aug.  28,  '49. 
This  may  certify  that  I  have  had  one  of  Mr.  Hussey's  Mowing  and 
Reaping  Machmes  on  my  farm  this  year  cutting  Wheat,  Oats,  and 
Grass  for  a  short  time.  I  think  nothing  can  beat  it  cutting  Timothy 
Grass,  and  I  intend  to  purchase  one  for  that  purpose.  While  the 
machine  was  cutting  Prairie  Grass  in  my  field,  I  cut  off  a  dry  poplar 
stake,  one  inch  in  diameter,  which  had  been  sticking  in  the  ground 
after  it  had  been  laid  off  for  a  ditch.  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  will 
cut  wheat  well,  where  it  is  so  much  lodged,  or  so  foul  with  stiff  weeds 
or  corn  stalks,  that  it  cannot  be  cut  with  any  other  machine  I  have 
seen  in  this  country.  Some  of  my  neighbors  say  that  they  intend  to 
have  Mr.  Hussey's  Reaper  in  preference  to  any  other;  and  from  what 
I  can  learn,  this  opinion  is  pretty  general  in  my  neighborhood, 
amongst  those  who  have  seen  this  machine  work,  and  are  acquainted 
with  other  machines.  My  brother  farmers  have  had  great  trouble  with 
McCormick's  machine,  by  the  breaking  of  sickles,  and  the  great  diffi- 
culty or  rather  the  impossibility  of  getting  them  repaired,  or  getting 
new  ones  made  when  broken,  whereas  the  blades  of  Mr.  Husscy's 
machine  can  be  made  by  any  common  blacksmith.  I  have  no  doubt 
but  Mr.  Hussey's  machine  will  come  into  general  use. 

D.   W.  Annis. 


INVKNTION   OF    KKAl'lNG    MACHINES,  39 

Franklin  Precinct,  DcKulb  Co.,  Aug.  13,  '49. 
This  may  certify  that  wc  have  seen  Mr.  O.  Husse>''s  machine  cut 
about  an  acre  of  wheat,  so  badly  lod<:^ed  that  McCormick's  Reaper 
could  do  nothing  with  it,  nt)r  could  it  be  cradled.  Said  Hussey's 
machine  cut  it  handsomely,  and  laid  it  in  very  good  bundles  for 
binding. 

John  .SciiooMAKiiR,  Daniill  Miller, 

Albekt  FiKLD,  Alijkrt  Field,  Jr  , 

John  M.  Schoomaker,  Isaac  Ckill, 

John  Miller. 


Berkshire,  Kane  county,  III.  Aug.  6,  18^9. 
We,  the  undersigned,  having  seen  Mr.  Hussey's  Reaper  work  at 
cutting  grass  and  grain,  think  it  preferable  to  McCormick's  or  any 
other  machine  that  we  have  seen.  It  cut  wheat  that  could  not  be  cut 
with  McCormick's  Reaper  or  a  cradle.  We  are  well  acquainted  with 
McCormick's  Machine 

P.  A.  HixBV,  David  Shanks, 

John  Griggs,  Jr.,  Abraham    Shir  wood, 

John  Griggs,  James  Hess, 

Harry  Potter,  Alson  Banker, 

John  Shirwood,  D.  C.  Wright, 

Seth  Shirwood,  Elisha  Wright. 


Ostvego,  III.,  Aug.  2,  1849. 
This  may  certify  that  I  cut  a  lot  of  Black  Sea  Wheat  with  Mr.  O. 
Hussey's  Reaper;  the  wheat  was  so  badly  lodged  that  no  McCormick 
Reaper  or  Cradle  could  cut  it;  Mr.  Hussey's  Reaper  cut  it  clean  and 
laid  the  bundles  out  of  the  track  in  good  order  for  binding.  I  have 
seen  the  work  done  by  this  machine  in  grass:  it  was  as  good  work  ^s 
ever  I  saw  done  by  a  sc\-the,  or  better.  For  my  choice  I  should 
rather  have  my  grass  cut  b)^  the  Reaper  than  by  the  scx'the.  Ever\- 
farmer  ought  to  have  such  a  machine,  and  every  farmer  I  hear  talk 
about  it  says  the  same. 

Piiilii'  Young. 


Sugar  Grove,  August  '6,  1849. 
This  may  certify  that  we  have  seen  Mr.  O.  Hussey's  machine 
operate  in  clean  grain,  and  where  weeds  were  very  tall,  large  and 
thick.  In  the  former,  it  operated  as  well  as  any  machine  we  have 
seen;  in  the  latter,  it  worked  to  a  charm,  even  where  it  was  impracti- 
cable to  cut  with  one  of  McCormick's  Reapers. 

Harry  White,  Hikam  Tubs, 

L.  B.  Snow,  Dwight  Stencer. 

Chauncy  Snow,  Samuel  Ward, 

Sullivan  Dorr,  A.  Logan. 


40  BRIEF   NARRATIVE   OF   THE 

Springfield,  (111.)  Dec.  25,  1850. 
Mr.  Obcd  Hnssey,  Baltimore,  Md: 

Dear  Sir— I  have  used  one  of  your  Mowing  and  Reaping  Machines, 
and  consider  it  the  best  machine  I  ever  saw,  and  never  intend  to  do 
without  one,  if  it  is  possible  to  get  one,  even  if  1  have  to  go  to  Balti- 
more and  remain  at  the  shop  till  one  can  be  made.  I  do  candidly 
believe  if  I  had  had  one  ten  years  ago,  I  would  now  feel  like  a  much 
younger  man;  and  cheerfully  recommend  them  to  all  who  have  grass 
or  grain  to  cut.  as  a  machine  that  will  do  their  work  in  perfect  order, 
neatness,  and  with  ease  to  all  employed. 

John  Simms, 
4  miles  west  of  Springfield,  111. 


Utica,  Lasal  Co.  111.  Dec.  14,  1850. 
Obcd  Hussey ,  Esq — Dear  Sir: — I  received  your  Reaping  and  Mow- 
ing Machine  in  time  for  harvest,  and  used  it  for  harvesting  and  for 
mowing.  I  am  fully  satisfied  that  your  machines  are  the  best  yet 
offered  to  the  farmers  of  thi§  State.  I  have  mowed  about  four  hun- 
dred acres,  a  great  portion  of  which  was  wild  prairie,  very  frequently 
running  against  stones  and  ant  heaps  with  suf^cient  force  to  throw 
both  driver  and  raker  off  the  machine,  without  injury  to  the  machine. 
Why  your  machine  is  preferable  to  any  other,  is — after  you  have  cut 
vour  different  kinds  of  grain,  fully  as  well  as  can  be  done  with  any 
other  machine,  with  not  over  fifteen  minutes'  work,  you  can  take  the 
same  machine  into  your  meadow  or  on  to  the  prairie,  and  cut  your 
grass  at  the  rate  of  ten  acres  per  day,  cutting  closer  and  cleaner  than 
can  be  done  with  a  scythe. — With  proper  care,  your  machines  will  last 
fifteen  or  twenty  years,  with  trifling  repairs. 

Respectfully  yours, 

James  Clark. 

Islaiid  Grove,  Saiigamon  Co.  III.  Dec.  25,  1850. 
Mr.  Obed  Hussey,  Baltimore,  Md.— Dear  Sir— Last  summer  I 
received  two  of  Hussey's  Mowing  and  Reaping  Machines;  one  from 
your  own  shop  in  Baltimore,  and  the  other  manufactured  in  this  State, 
Unfortunately  for  me,  I  retained  the  one  manufactured  in  this  State, 
and  with  some  difficulty  succeeded  in  cutting  about  two  hundred  acres 
of  wheat  and  grass.  The  one  from  your  shop  I  let  Mr.  John  Simms 
have,  who  cut  his  wheat,  oats  and  hay,  (about  seventy-five  acres),  with 
perfect  satisfaction  and  ease,  most  of  it  with  two  horses,  and  without 
being  obliged  to  grind  the  knives.  After  Mr.  Simms  finished  his  har- 
vest he  let  Mr.  James  D.  Smith,  of  Island  Grove,  have  it,  who  cut 
about  three  hundred  acres  of  grass  with  it,  the  machine  giving  perfect 
satisfaction.  Very  respectfully  yours, 

Edward  J.  Eno. 

Carrolton,  Green  Co.,  III.,  Dec.  27,  1850. 
I  procured  one  of   Mr.   Hussey's    Reaping   and   Mowing  Machines 
from  Baltimore  last  spring;  I  cut  eighty  acres  of  wheat,  and  ten  acres 


INVENTION   OK    RKAI'ING    MACHINES.  41 

of  oats,  and  fifty  acres  of  timothy  with  it,  to  my  entire  satisfaction — 
after  which  I  cut  sixty  acres  of  cloverseed  with  it  in  less  than  five 
days.  I  could  not  have  saved  the  cloverseed  without  the  machine, 
so  I  consider  I  saved  the  whole  cost  of  the  machine  in  the  saving  of 
the  cloverseed  alone. 

Samuel  Thomas. 

Springfield,  III.,  Dec.  25,  1850. 
Mr.  Obed  Hiissey,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Dear  Sir:— During  the  harvest  of  August,  1849,  with  one  of  your 
machines  I  cut  sixty  acres  of  Hemp,  using  a  set  of  4><  feet  knives  and 
guards,  and  two  teams  of  four  horses  each,  changing  every  two  rounds, 
which  cut  on  an  average  eight  acres  per  day.  This  last  harvest,  the 
same  single  machine,  with  6  foot  guides  and  knives,*  operated  by  the 
same  force,  cut  successfully  250  acres  of  hemp,  or  from  10  to  12  acres 
per  day.  From  this  experience,  I  take  pleasure  in  recommending 
your  Cutters  above  the  hemp  cradle  and  hook,  not  only  as  labor-sav- 
ing, by  the  expedition  with  which  they  cut,  but  as  hemp  saving,  from 
the  perfect  thoroughness,  evenness  and  nearness  to  the  ground  with 
which  they  do  their  work,  and  the  regular  and  collected  form  in 
which  they  leave  the  hemp  after  being  cut. 

Yours  respectfully, 

Euw.xKD  S.  Cox. 


Carrolton,  Lebanon  Co.  III.  Sept.  1850. 
Mr.  0.  Hi/ssty:— The  four  Reaping  and  Mowing  Machines  you  sent, 
arrived  safe  and  in  good  order.  Their  performance  far  exceeded  our 
expectations,  the  work  went  on  so  smoothly  that  we  scarcely  knew  it 
was  hay  time  and  harvest.  *  *  *  If  your  machine  had  been  as 
well  known  as  they  are  now,  you  could  have  sold  twenty  as  well  as 
one.  '  Yours,  Jonas  Ward. 

The  few  letters  which  follow,  taken  from  the  American  Farmer, 
and  referring  to  a  still  later  period,  are  selected  for  their  brevity,  from 
many  others,  and  principally  from  Maryland  and  Ohio.  It  is  consid- 
ered unnecessary  to  extend  tlie  list,  for  the  operation  and  character  of 
the  machine  is  too  well  and  too  widely  known  at  this  day  to  render  it 
necessary  to  the  intelligent  farmer  and  general  reader,  in  any  grain 
growing  section  of  the  country .f 

*The  cutters  were  lengthened  by  removing  a  board  that  previously  reduced  the 
cutting  space  to  4'i  feet  in  length. 

tWith  the  view  of  determining  as  far  as  possible,  which  was  the  best  Reaping 
and  Mowing  Machines  for  the  farmer  to  purchase,  the  Maryland  State  Agricultural 
Society  in  18.'i'2  offered  a  prize  of  one  hundred  dollars,— the  largest  yet  offered  in  the 
country— for  the  best  niachme,  to  be  tested  by  a  committee  appointed  by  the  Society; 
a  large  conmiittee  of  men  of  the  tirst  standing  in  the  State,  and  all  large  wheat 
growers,  was  appointed,  and  extended  notice  published  of  the  trial  to  take  place 
at  "Wye  "  the  seat  of  Col.  Edward  Lloyd,  Eastern  Shore,  Md.,  in  July. 

Every  effort  was  made  by  the  Society  and  Committee  to  give  a  fair  and  satisfac- 


42  BRIEF    NAKKATIVE   OF   THE 

Harewood,  i2mo,8,  1852. 
Having  used  one  of  O.  Hussey's  reaping  and  Mowing  Machines 
during  the  last  harvest  (1852)  I  can  state  that  in  cutting  Wheat,  Oats 
and  Cloverseed — also  in  mowing  my  crop  of  grass,  it  has  fully 
answered  my  expectations,  doing  the  work  better  than  I  ever  had  it 
done  by  the  scythe,  and  at  much  less  expense.  The  machine  has  been 
tested  by  cutting  some  fifty  to  sixty  acres  of  grass — quite  sufficient  to 
prove  its  complete  adaptation  to  mowing  as  well  as  reaping. 

EDWARD  STABLER. 

Wye  House,  Dec.  20,  1852. 
Dear  Sir:— Having  worked    your   Reaper  for  many  years,  I  have 
fully  tested  its  merits.     It  has   proved   itself   to    be,  not  only  a  wheat 
saving  implement,  but  a  labor  and  time  saving  one — these  are  all  im- 
portant to  the  farmer. 

It  does  its  work  completely,  regardless  of  the  position  of  the  wheat, 
if  in  condition  to  bind. 

Those  you  sent  me  in  the  spring  worked  well   through  the  harvest, 
and  proved  their  strength. 

Yours  respectfully, 

EDW'D    LLOYD. 


Oxford,  Md.,  Dec.  8,  1852. 
Mr.  Obed  Hussey — Sir:     I  have  used  your  Reaper  with  such  entire 
satisfaction, that  I  am  but  performing  a  duty  to  my  brother  farmers  by 
recommending  it  in  the  strongest  terms. 

For  sixteen  years  I  have  used  a  Reaping  Machine,  and  know  from 
experience  that  the  most  important  qualities  are  ^//y//^/"//  and  simplicity. 
In  these  respects  your  machine  is  superior  to  any  other,  and  is  the 
only  one  I  have  seen  which  can  be  safely  entrusted  to  the  manage- 
ment of  ordinary  overseers,  with  negro  laborers. 

Yours,  &c., 

TENCH  TILGHMAN. 


Hayes,  Montgomery  Co.,  Md.,  Dec, 7,  1852. 
I  purchased  in  the  year  185 1  one  of  Mr.  Obed  Hussey's  Reaping 
Machines — I  used  it  that  year  and  this  year  in  cutting  my  grain;  I  was 
pleased  with  the  machine;  I  consider  it  a  valuable  implement,  and 
hope  never  to  be  without  one  while  I  continue  to  be  a  farmer.  My 
machine  was  used  in  cutting  wheat  and  oats — it  was  not  designed  for 
grass;  I  employed  it  about  half  the  day, and  reaped  about  ten  acres  of 
land  in  grain — the  rest  of  the  day  was  devoted  to  the  securing  of  the 
grain;  I  used  four  horses.     My  machine,  I  believe,  was  of  the  smallest 

tory  trial;  as  the  extent  of  crops  in  that   fine  wheat   growing  region,  and  extensive 
level  face  of  the  country,  are  unsurpassed  anywhere  for  such  an  exhibition. 

But  two  machines  were  entered  for  competitifin,  McKeever's  and  Hussey's.  The 
prize  was  awarded  unanimously  to  Hussey.  Why  no  others  could  be  induced  to 
attend, was  a  matter  of  surprise  at  the  time,  and  so  remains  with  many. 


INVENTION    OF    KEAI'ING    MA(  MINKS.  43 

size,  and  was  without  front  wheels;  with    wheels   it  would  ha\e  been  a 
relief  to  the  horses. 

I  cannot  speak  of  the  relati\-e  value  of  this  machine  compared  with 
others,  havint;  never  seen  an\'  Reai)inf^  Machines  but  Hussey's  at  work. 
I  do  not  think  I  could  be  incluced  to  return  to  the  old  mode  of  cutting 
grain  by  the  scythe  and  cradle. 

Respectfully  vours,  &c., 

ROBERT  P.  DUN  LOP. 


Forest  Hill,  King  and  Queen  Co.,  Va.,    | 

Dec.  24,  1852.  f 
Mr.  O.  Hussey — Sir:  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  state  that  I  used  your 
Reaping  Machine  in  my  late  harvest  with  great  satisfaction.  It  fully 
equals  my  expectation  as  a  labor-saving  implement,  and  does  the  work 
better  than  can  be  done  by  the  cradle.  I  would  farther  state, that  the 
seven  which  were  purchased  along  with  mine  for  my  relations  and 
friends  of  this  county,  have  given  in  every  instance,  entire  satisfaction. 

Very  respectfully, 

WM.  D.'GRESHAM. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  American  Farmer — 

Dear  Sir: — Having  had  a  fair  opportunity  of  observing  the  per- 
formance of  Mr.  Hussey's  celebrated  "Reaper"  on  my  farm  last  season, 
under  circumstances  peculiarly  calculated  to  test  its  efficiency,  I  think 
it  not  inappropriate  to  bear  my  testimony  in  its  favor. 

I  finished  cutting  my  grain  more  than  a  week  ago.  The  grain  was 
not  only  blown  as  flat  as  possible,  but  was  tangled  and  twisted  together, 
and  h'ing  in  every  direction;  so  much  so  that  it  would  ha\-e  been  impos- 
sible to  cut  a  large  portion  of  it  with  the  cradle.  No  one  who  saw  the 
field  believed  the  machine  could  possibly  succeed. 

I  take  great  pleasure  in  stating  that  its  success  was  perfect  and 
entire.  It  cut  and  gathered  the  grain  in  the  very  worst  spots  almost 
as  well  as  that  which  was  standing;  and  I  was  thus  enabled  to  mow  my 
croj)  in  about  one-half  the  time  the  old  fashioned  method  would  have 
required,  thereby  effecting  a  large  pecuniary  gain.  It  cuts  the  grass 
as  evenl)'  and  as  close  as  the  most  expert  mower.  I  need  scarcely  say 
that  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  it.     I  subscribe  myself  yours,  &c. 

AOUILLA  TALBOT. 


Alex.\ndrl\,  Va.,  i2mo,  ii,  1852. 
It  gives  me  much  pleasure  to  state  that  I  have  had  in  use  on  my  farm 
,  in  Montgomer\' Count}-,  Md.,  for  the  past  two  seasons,  one  of  "Hussey's 
Reapers,"  and  its  operation  has  given  me  entire  satisfaction  in  every 
respect.  It  appears  to  combine  the  three  qualities  so  important  to  the 
farmer,  efficiency,  durability  and  economy.  I  can,  with  great  sincerity, 
recommend  its  general  adoption. 

BENJAMIN   HALLOWELL. 


44  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF    THE 

To  Obed  Hussey— Dear  Sir:— Having  used  one  of  your  Reapers 
upon  land,  a  great  deal  of  which  was  hilly,  stony  and  rough;  I  take 
pleasure  in  saying  that  it  has  given  entire  satisfaction,  and  proved  to 
be  a  very  durable,  well  built,and  great  labor  saving  machine. 

Respectfully, 

A.    B.  DAVIS. 
Greenwood.  Mont.  Co.,  Md.   Dec.  20,  1852. 


Pickaway  Count)-,  O.,  July  1st,  185 1. 

1  made  an  experiment  this  season  in  my  field,  of  testing  the  Mc- 
Cormick  and  Hussey  Reapers.  I  tried  each  fairly,  and  under  similar 
circumstances.  I  am  satisfied  that  Hussey's  is  decidedly  the  best 
Reaper,  both  as  to  cutting  grain  and  durability. — The  objections  made 
to  Hussey's  Reaper  by  agents  and  manufacturers  of  other  machines,  I 
do  not  find,  upon  trial,  to  exist  in  any  one  particular. 

WM.   STAGE. 

We,  the  undersigned  present  at  the  trial,  concur  in  Mr.  Stage's 
statement:— Z.  Pritchett,  John  Reber,  Philip  Stuart,  Isaac  Stage,  John 
Hogeland,  Michael  Eyer. 


Salem  Tp.  Champaign  Co.  O.  July,  1851. 
I  have  worked  with  McCormick  and  Hussey's  Reapers  three  sea- 
sons, and  unqualifiedly  pronounce  Hussey's  the  best  machine.  It 
cuts  cleaner  and  faster,  and  leaves  the  grain  in  better  order  on  the 
ground;  and  this  is  the  opinion  of  every  hand  in  giving  an  expression 
of  the  comparative  merits  of  the  two   machines. 

THOS.  OUTRAM. 


Union  Tow'nship,  Champaign  County,  O.,    ) 

July,  1851.        ( 
I  have   for  the    past    four  seasons    worked    Hussey's   Reaper,  and 
unhesitatingly  pronounce  it  vastly  superior   to   McCormick's  or  any 
other  Reaper  I  have  seen  used. 

WILLIAM  T.  ZOMBRO. 


Salem  Township,  Champaign  County,  O.,    ) 

July.  1851.        f 


I  have  had  Hussey's  Reaper  used  on  my  farm.— It  will  cut  20 acres 
of  the  heaviest  wheat  per  day,  with  ease.  I  consider  it  far  superior  to 
the  McCormick  Reaper.  JOSHUA  BUFFINGTON. 

Ross  County,  Ohio,  July.  1851. 
I  have  used  Hussey's  Rcaper.and  consider  it  an  invaluable  machine. 
I  have  seen   McCormick's   Reaper   operate,  and  am  of   opinion   that 
Hussey's  is   the  best   machine. 

D.  M'CONNELL. 


INVENTION   OF    KEAl'ING    MACHINKS.  45 

Union  Townshii*,  Clianipaign  County,  O.,    I 

Aug.,  1S51.        \ 
I  have  used  Husscy's   Reaper  for   four   jxars.     I  prefer  it  to  e\ery 
other  machine.     I  do  not   have   to    drive  fast,  and    tlie    raking    is  the 
easiest  work  in  the  field.  JOHN   KARSOM. 

Sai.em  Township,  Champaign  County,  O.,    I 

Aug.,  1S51.        \ 
I  bought  a  Hussey  Reaper  this    season,  and   it  has  given  the  best 
satisfaction.     I   cut  wheat  tliat  was  down  as  badly  as  any  I  e\'er  saw. 
It  operated  well  by  driving  in  a  slow  walk.     My  hands    would  rather 
rake  than  bind.  JOHN  LEE. 

Union  Township,  Champaign  County,  0.,    ) 

July,  1851.  f 
I  have  used  for  five  years  Hussey's  Reaper.  It  is  a  labor  and  grain 
saving  machine.  It  is  a  much  better  machine  than  AlcCormick's,  in 
several  particulars;  it  is  more  substantial,  not  so  liable  to  injury,  and 
will  cut  faster  and  cleaner.  I  cut  this  season,  with  three  horses,  sixteen 
acres  of  heavy  wheat,  in  five  hours  and  thirty  minutes. 

REZIN  C.  WILSON. 

Bergen,  Sept.  i,  185 1. — This  is  to  certify  that  I  have  for  three 
seasons  used  one  of  Hussey's  Reaping  Machines,  which  I  purchased 
at  the  Gennesee  Seed  Store,  and  that  it  gives  perfect  satisfaction.  I 
have  cut  my  wheat  when  it  was  very  badly  lodged,  much  faster,  better 
and  cheaper  than  it  could  have  been  done  in  any  other  way.  I  had 
one  of  McCormick's,  but  left  it  in  the  road,  a  useless  article,  as  I  con- 
sider it;  having  tried  for  three  years  to  use  it  without  success. 

I  consider  Hussey's  machine  just  the  thing  for  our  farmers,  and  I 
could  not  now,  after  having  proved  its  merits,  be  induced  to  be  with- 
out one.  NOAH  WILSON. 

With  a  few  general  remarks  as  to  the  reputation  of  Reaping 
Machines  in  England,  and  on  the  authority  of  the  annexed  English 
publications,  we  take  leave  of  the  subject. 

At  the  trial  for  which  the  "Great  Council  Medal"  was  awarded,  but 
which  no  practical  farmer  in  this  country  would  consider  as  any  trial 
at  all,  being  merely  the  attempt  to  cut  a  small  space  in  green  and  wet 
grain,  and  during  the  temporary  absence  of  Hussey,  his  machine  was 
operated  by  ignorant  laborers  of  the  "Chrystal  Palace,"  and  who  had 
never  before  seen  a  reaping  machine. 

This  did  not  satisfy  the  English  farmers;  com|)laints  were  soon 
heard  of  injustice,  partiality,  and  unfairness.  It  compelled  C.  H.  Mc- 
Cormick  or  his  agents  to  offer  a  challenge,  which  was  promptly 
accepted  by  Hussey;  and  before  the  Cleveland  Agricultural  Society  a 
tolerably  fair  trial  was  had  of  the  rival  machines,  though  neither  the 
grain  or  ground  was  then    in    a    suitable   state.     Eor  the    decision    of 


46  BRIEF    NARRATIVE   OF    THE 

twelve  prominent  men  and  practical  farmers,  we  refer  to  the  annexed 
English  account  for  the  complete  triumph  of  the  unmedalled  machine. 

In  an  interview  with  an  extensive  agricultural  implement  maker  of 
Yorkshire — himself  an  inventor  of  many  v^aluable  implements,  and  to 
no  small  extent  a  rival — he  spoke  of  Obed  Hussey  as  a  man  who  con- 
ferred honor  on  his  own  country;  as  well  by  his  genius  and  talents,  as 
by  his  integrity  of  character.  This  feeling  was  alike  honorable  to  the 
gentleman  who  gave  it  expression,  and  just  to  an  American  citizen. 

Obed  Hussey  is  perhaps  the  only  American  who  ever  waved  the 
"Stars  and  Stripes"  on  the  soil  of  England,  [placed  there  too,  at  dif- 
ferent times,  on  his  machine,  by  English)nen\  or  who  could  do  it  with- 
out a  strong  feeling  of  envy  and  jealousy  being  engendered.  Even 
Englishmen,  jealous  as  they  are  known  to  be,  viewed  Hussey  as  a 
public  benefactor,  and  his  mission  as  one  calculated  either  directly  or 
indirectly  to  benefit  all  classes.  Yet  in  his  own  country,  which  he  has 
so  signally  benefitted,  lie  is  compelled  to  supplicate  for  years,  and 
as  yet  in  vain,  for  rights,  that  others,  with  not  a  tithe  of  his  claim  and 
merit,  but  with  more  ample  means  perhaps,  or  more  influential  friends, 
succeed  in  obtaining.  It  is  a  reproach  to  the  age  and  to  the  Halls  of 
Legislation.  When  it  was  supposed  this  great  invention  was  perfected 
in  England,  many  years  ago — though  iiot  successful,  as  was  subse- 
quently proved — the  Nation  took  the  matter  in  hand.and  Parliament 
voted  a  reward  to  its  author. 

At  the  great  Agricultural  Exhibition  for  "Bath  and  the  West  of 
England,"  held  at  Plymouth  in  i<S53,  the  Plymouth  Mail  states:  ["the 
interest  and  excitement  created  by  the  trial  of  Reaping  Machines  was 
very  great,  and  the  crowd  of  persons  assembled  to  witness  their  per- 
formance was  immense"] — that  Hussey  won  the  prize  for  Reaping, by 
acclamation,  over  all  competitors— the  only  other  American  machine 
present,  McCormick's  included;  and  an  eye  witness  states  that  three 
cheers  were  proposed  for  Mr.-  Hussey  by  Sir  Thomas  Ackland,  the 
President,  and  member  of  Parliament,  which  was  responded  to  by 
thousands,  and  without  a  dissenting  voice;  that  his  reaper  was  crowned 
with  laurel  by  the  Judges,  and  the  "stars  and  stripes"  waved  in  triumph 
twenty-five  feet  high  over  American  ingenuity  and  enterprise  on  Eng- 
lish soil. 

At  this  trial  it  was  again  demonstrated  to  the  agriculturists  of 
Great  Britain  by  Obed  Hussey,  [and  not  for  the  first  time,  though  he 
was  the ^^5/ to  do  it],  that  his  machine  would  cut  their  grass  quite  as 
perfectly  as  their  "corn."  The  Mail  goes  on  to  say:  "A  mowing 
machine  was  so  remote  from  the  expectations  and  hopes  of  the  Society, 
that  no  prize  was  offered  for  one;  yet  Mr.  Hussey  was  prepared  with 
a  mowing  machine,  which  was  taken  to  an  adjoining  field  of  meadow 
grass  and  clover  mixed.  The  people  followed,  but  evidently  with  no 
expectation  of  being  gratified.  The  machine  mower  was  put  inaction, 
and  to  the  admiration  of  every  one,  it  cut  the  grass  with  an  evenness 
and  precision  which  is  truly  surprising,  being  more  close  and  even 
than  a  scythe.  The  grass  left  behind  the  machine  was  quite  evenly 
spread,  and  where  it  was  not  so,  it  lay  so  light  and  open  that  the  use 


INVENTION   (JK    RKAt-lNG    MACHINES. 


of  the  tendiiij:;^  machine  was   scarcely    necessary.     The  admiration  of 
the  truly  astonishing^  performance  was  universal. 

The  cutting  the  rye  was  looked  for,  but  mowin^^  the  grass  took 
every  one  by  surprise.  Thus,  a  great  desideratum  has  been  achieved; 
the  farmer  has  now  only  to  gear  up  his  horses  and  take  a  ride  through 
his  meadow,  and  his  grass  is  cut." 

Again,  at  the  Royal  Agricultural  Society's  F^xhibition,  held  at  Lin- 
coln, the  present  season,  the  Mark  Lane  Lxpress  states  that  Hussey's 
machine  won  the  prize  o\er  all  competitors;  and  admits  that  Bell's 
machine  was  "at  last  fairly  beaten." 

Is  there  an  A^noican  wlio  can  read  these  accounts  who  does  not 
feel  indebted  to  the  man  who,  solely  by  his  own  perseverance  and  skill, 
has  added  lustre  to  his  country's  renown  in  the  peaceful  walks  of  life? 
If  the  same  man,  as  a  "warrior  in  hostile  array,"  had  raised  the  same 
flag  in  triumph  on  the  same  soil,  how  would  his  countr^'men  have 
rewarded  him?  Doubtless  by  a  "vote  of  thanks  by  both  Houses  of 
Congress,"  together  with  a  sword  and  gold  medal,  if  not  a  monument 
in  addition! 

Should  not  those  be  equally  honored  and  rewarded  b}'  the  Country, 
who  are  engaged  in  the  arts  and  in  agriculture;  who  devote  their 
energies  to  add  to  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  their  fellow  man,  as 
those  engaged  in  shedding  blood,  making  widows  and  orphans  to 
mourn  for  their  untimely  bereavement,  and  who  literally  for  hire,  not 
patriotism,  and  with  the  spirit  demons,  seek  to  slay  and  destro}'? 

We  fully  believe  so;  for  fame  and  renown  in  arms  are  rarely  or 
never  acquired,  except  by  entailing  misery  and  distress  on  our  fellow 
beings,  and  engendering  the  worst  feelings  and  passions  of  our 
nature. 

But  we  hope  for  the  advent  of  better  days;  when,  if  the  political 
sword  is  not  literally  beaten  into  a  plough-share,  and  the  partizan  spear 
turned  into  a  pruning  hook,  the  inventive  genius  and  talent  of  our  coun- 
trymen shall  be  more  aided  and  better  rewarded  by  Government,  in  its 
praiseworthy  efforts  "for  the  diffusion  of  knowledge  among  men,"  in 
all  that  really  ennobles  the  mind,  and  benefits  the  whole  human  family. 
Such,  at  least,  is  the  earnest  wish  and  desire  of 

A  Farmer  .and  Mechanic. 


HUSSEY'S 

REAPING  AND  MOWING  MACHINE 

IN  KNQLAND. 


In  presenting  the  following  pages  for  consideration  of  the  farmers 
of  the  country,  the  subscriber  has  confined  himself  strictly  to  matters 
selected  from  English  papers,  which  will  speak  for  itself.  As  a  short 
explanation  from  me  will  be  looked  for,  I  will  merely  state,  that  at  the 
trial  in  presence  of  the  Exhibition  Jury,  Mr.  McCormick's  machine 
was  operated  by  an  experienced  hand  sent  from  the  United  States, 
while  mine  was  managed  by  English  laborers  of  the  lower  class,  who 
were  total  strangers  to  it,  and  had  never  seen  it  in  operation.  The 
trial  was  made  in  unripe  wheat  on  a  rainy  day.  My  machine  was 
very  improperly  adjusted  for  the  work  and  wrongly  put  together,  in 
consequence  of  which  the  ignorant  raker  failed  to  deliver  the  sheaves, 
and  it  stopped  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  was  immediately  laid  aside, 
after  cutting  but  a  few  feet.  My  machine  was  never  tried  in  presence 
of  that  Jury  by  any  other  hands,  or  in  any  other  condition,  myself  not 
being  in  England. 

It  was  on  such  a  trial  that  the  Exhibition  medal  was  disposed  of, 
and  with  what  justice  the  reader  can  judge  by  reading  the  following 
pages.  On  my  arrival  in  England  I  took  my  machine  into  the  field 
that  it  might  work  its  way  into  public  favor,  as  it  best  could.  After 
being  exhibited  in  several  places,  its  rising  fame  appeared  to  produce 
some  effect,  as  it  will  appear  by  the  following  in  the  Windsor  and 
Eaton  Express,  of  Nov.  8,  1851: 

Alluding  to  the  astonishing  and  unexpected  performance  of  my 
Reaper,  it  says: — By  this  unlooked  for  turn  of  events,  the  proprietors  of 
M'  Cormick's  machine  found  tJiat  their  supremacy  was  no  longer  uiuiisputed, 
a?id  that  the  necessity  ivas  laid  upon  them  to  look  to  their  laurels  ;  they  there- 
fore came  boldly  forii'ard,  and  threzv  down  the  gauntlet! !" 

That  farmers  who  are  acquainted  with  my  reaper  may  understand 
why  it  failed  to  perform  well  in  the  hands  of  strangers  at  the  Exhibi- 
tion trial  where  McCormick  got  the  medal.  It  will  be  necessary  for 
me  to  say,  that  when  the  machine  was  sent  from  Baltimore  it  was  set 
to  cut  high.  That  when  the  inexperienced  hands  undertook  to  make 
it  cut  low,  they  pitched  down  the  cutters  by  putting  on  the  tongue, 
not  knowing  any  other  way  to  lower  it.  In  doing  so  the  hind  part  of 
the  platform  was  of  course  raised  high.  In  this  condition  the  unprac- 
ticed  raker  failed  to  push  the  heavy  wet  wheat  off  up  an  inclined  plane; 
and  as  a  matter  of  course  the  machine  choaked,  and   for  the   same 

48 


ENGLISH    I-UHLICATIONS.  49 

reason  that  a  mill  will  choak  when  the  corn  jjjocs  in  faster  tlian  tlie  meal 
comes  out.  A  skillful  hand  would  have  lowered  the  cut  at  the  axle  of 
the  machine,  and  broufjht  the  platform  horizontal  or  lowest  at  the  rear, 
as  it  should  be  in  cutting  wet  grain. 

The  following  pages  will  show  the  result,  the  authenticit)-  of  which, 
if  doubted,  will  be  proved  by  the  production  of  the  originals  in  my 
possession.  OHKD   HUS.SEV. 

Baltimon\  Md.,yan.  i,  1852. 


I'rom  tJic  Hull  yii/iij^ldnd'\  Advertiser,  Sept.  5,  185 1. 

At  the  annual  meeting  on  Mr.  Mechi's  Farm  at  Tiptree  Ilcath,  a 
few  weeks  ago,  a  brief  report  of  which  appeared  in  the  Hull  Adver- 
tiser at  the  time,  several  reaping  machines  were  tested,  the  result  then 
being  that  one  manufactured  and  invented  by  Mr  McCormick,  of 
America,  was  the  only  one  which  was  considered  to  have  done  its 
work  properh'.  Amongst  those  tried,  was  one  invented  and  manu- 
factured by  ]\Ir.  O.  Ilussey,  Baltimore,  Md.  (U.S.)  which  in  the  ojjinion 
of  gentlemen  then  present,  did  not  fully  accomplish  the  object  in  view. 
It  should,  howcxer  be  mentioned,  that  while  Mr.  McCormick's  machine 
had  on  that  trial  the  advantage  of  the  superintendence  of  persons  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  its  mechanism,  and  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  the  working  of  the  machine  for  some  years,  Mr.  Hussey's  invention 
was  (in  the  absence  of  the  inventor)  in  the  hands  of  persons  entirely 
unacquainted  with  the  proper  mode  of  working  it.  Since  then  Mr. 
Hussey  himself  has  come  over  to  England,  in  order  to  superintend  his 
machine,  and  the  result  has  been  that  it  is  now  brought  out  to  recei\e 
a  thorough  trial  of  its  merits, 

The  trial  of  Wednesday,  however,  was  the  best.  It  took  place  in  a 
field  belonging  to  Mr.  Coskill,  Gro\ehill  Lane,  Beverly.  There  was 
assembled  during  the  day  a  great  number  of  farmers  and  gentlemen 
interested  in  agriculture,  who  witnessed  the  trial  with  great  interest. 

The  wheat  in  this  case  was  very  much  "laid;"  indeed  in  many 
places  it  was  almost  flat  on  the  ground.  It  therefore  afforded  one  of 
the  best  opportunities  tor  judging  of  the  capabilities  of  the  machine 
under  disad\antageous  circumstances  that  could  possibly  occur. 

On  the  whole,  the  conclusion  come  to  was,  that  the  reaping  was 
done  as  well  by  machine  as  by  hand.  No  one  doubted  for  a  moment 
that  it  would  cut  corn  well  where  it  was  standing;  but  some  farmers 
thought  it  would  not  equal  the  scythe  where  the  corn  was  laid.  The 
result,  however,  showed  the  contrary,  and  every  person  acknowledged 
that  it  had  succeeded  admirably.  After  cutting  a  large  quantity  of 
wheat,  the  machine  was  taken  into  another  field,  and  after  a  slight 
alteration,  set  to  work  to  cut  clox'cr.  We  understand  that  on  the  da\- 
before  previous  to  coming  to  Hull,  it  had  been  tried  on  cloxcr  and  cut 
it  extremely  well. 

As  the  machine  cut  along  it  was  followed  closely  by  groups  of 
farmers  striving  hard  to  find  flaws  in  its  performance.  But  they  could 
not.  On  the  contrary,  in  those  places  where  the  corn  was  most  "laid,' 
4 


50  ENGLISH    PUBLICATIONS. 

and  where,  consequently,  the  greatest  difficulty  must  occur  in  the  cut- 
ting, the  manner  in  which  the  reaper  did  its  work  elicited  their  loudest 
approbation;— "Why,"  said  one  burly  old  gentleman  by  our  side,  "  a 
man  with  a  scythe  could  never  cut  it  like  that."  "  It  is  wonderful,"  said 
another. 

Fro7n  til c  Morning  Advertiser,  Sept.  12,  1851. 

On  Monday  last,  the  public  trial  of  Hussey's  patent  Reaping 
Machine  took  place  with  the  permission  of  his  Grace,  the  Uuke  of 
Marlborough,  on  his  Grace's  estate  of  Blenheim,  near  Woodstock, 
Oxfordshire,  and  also,  on  the  adjoining  one  of  Mr.  Southern,  one  of 
the  most  considerable  landed  proprietors  of  the  country.  A  large 
assemblage  of  the  Agriculturists  of  the  highest  class  attracted  by  the 
celebrity  which  this  ingenious  and  efficient  contrivance  has  acquired  for 
itself  in  a  course  of  successful  experiments  performed  last  week  in  York- 
shire, were  present  to  witness  the  trial,  mostly  from  Oxfordshire  and 
the  adjoining  counties,  but  many  from  a  considerable  distance,  and  all 
of  them  concurred  in  the  most  ready  acknowledgments  of  its 
advantages. 

The  reaping  commenced  at  eleven  o'clpck  in  the  barley  field,  the 
machine  being  drawn  by  two  fine  chestnut  horses,  lent  by  his  Grace 
for  the  purpose  of  the  experiment,  in  which  he  took  the  deepest  inter- 
est, following  the  reaper  in  a  car,  and  watching  with  evident  satisfac- 
tion, the  ease  and  rapidity  with  which  the  blades  cut  down  the  golden 
produce  of  the  field.  The  crop  was  by  no  means  one  calculated  to 
favor  the  experiment.  On  the  contrary,  some  of  it  was  down  and 
much  laid.  It  was  cut  down,  however,  with  great  regularity  and  speed, 
and  the  general  evenness  of  the  stubble  was  the  subject  of  general 
remark.  As  the  machine  passed  on,  hewing  its  way  at  a  smart  pace 
through  the  dense  mass  of  stalks,  the  crowd  of  eager  observers  rushed 
after  it,  and  many  were  the  cheers  with  which  it  was  welcomed.  Occa- 
sionally, to  satisfy  the  ideas  of  the  more  fastidious,  the  level  of  the 
cutters  was  changed,  so  as  to  leave  a  greater  or  less  length  of  stubble, 
and  it  was  evident  to  all  that  in  this  respect  the  machine  was  suscepti- 
ble of  the  nicest  adjustment.  Sometimes  at  the  end  of  a  turn  it  was 
rested  to  give  the  farmers  an  opportunity  of  inspecting  it,  which  they 
seemed  nevertired  of  doing,  and  then  it  was  turned  round  at  right  angles 
to  cut  in  the  cross  direction.  In  the  experiments  upon  barley,  it 
showed  itself  capable  of  reaping  the  enormous  space  of  15  acres,  which 
we  believe  is  from  eight  to  nine  times  the  power  of  the  most  vigorous 
and  skillful  reaper.  Afterwards  the  machine  was  taken  into  a  large 
field  of  clover,  which  it  cut  to  within  two  inches  of  the  ground,  and 
with  still  greater  rapidity. 

His  Grace  repeatedly  expressed  his  admiration  of  the  powers  of 
the  apparatus,  and  congratulated  some  of  the  agricultural  gentlemen 
present  with  him  on  the  prospects  of  greater  economy  and  security  in 
harvesting  which  it  afforded  them.— These  opinions  were  generally 
entertained  upon  the  ground,  and  yesterday  at  Bishop's  Startford,  in 


ENGLISH    I'LliLlCATIONS.  51 

Hartfordsliirc,  the  farnicrs  of  that  jKirt  of  the  country  witnessed  a  sim- 
ilar experiment,  attended  with  results  precisely  similar,  and  which  gave 
them  the  same  satisfaction. 


The  following  Testimonial  was  given  by  the  Duke  of  Marlborough: 

Tuesday,  Sei)teniber  9th,  1S51. 

Having  yesterda)',  witnessed  the  working  of  the  American  Reaping 
Machine,  patented  by  Mr.  Hussey.  and  being  requested  to  give  my 
opinion  upon  its  execution,  I  state  that  it  performed  its  work  admira- 
bly, laying  the  corn  when  cut  \ery  neatly  for  tying  up,  and  leaving  the 
stubble  very  regular.  MARLBOROUGH. 

Following  upon  these  various  successes,  an  advertisement  from  the 
proprietors  of  McCormick's  Machine,  appeared  in  the  public  papers, 
as  follows: 

MR.  M'CORMICK'S  AMERICAN    REAPER. 

Public  Challenge  to  Makers  and  Venders  of  Reaping  Machines. — 
We,  the  undersigned,  agents  for  Mr.  McCormick,  having  observed 
sundry  adxertisements  and  circulars  complaitiing  of  the  decision  of  the 
Jurors  of  the  Great  Exhibition  of  1851  in  favor  of  Mr.  McCormick's 
Reaper,  and  of  the  reports  given  in  the  public  journals  of  the  trials 
which  led  to  such  decision,  do  hereby  give  notice  to  Messrs,  \Vm.  Dray 
&  Co.,  Messrs.  Garrett  &  Son,  Mr.  O.  Hussey,  and  all  other  makers  and 
venders  of  Reaping  Machines  whatsoever,  that  M'CORAHCK'S 
RP^APER  will  be  tried  at  the  Cleveland  Society's  Show  at  Marton, 
Middlesboro,  near  Stockton-on-Tees,  on  the  25th  inst.,  and  publicly 
CHALLENGE  them  or  any  of  them,  to  meet  us  there,  with  their 
machines,  for  the  purjwse  of  a  comparative  trial  of  the  respective 
merits  of  each,  to  be  determined  by  the  Chairman  and  Council  of  the 
Cleveland  Society,  or  by  such  Judge  or  Judges  as  the  said  Societ\'  may 
appoint.     BURGESS  &  KPvV,  103,  Newgate-street,  London.     ' 

The  Challenge  was  immediately  accepted. 

MR    IIUSSEY'S    AMERICAN    REAPER. 

"  In  answer  to  an  ad\ertisement  which  appeared  in  the  Times  of 
the  i8th,  from  Messrs.  Burgess  &  Kev,  giving  us  a  PUBLIC  CHAL- 
LENGE, to  a  TRIAL  of  the  AMERICAN  REAPING  MACHINP:S, 
we  hereby  announce  that  we  shall  willingly  ACCP2PT  the  SAME,  and 
on  the  25th  inst.,  we  shall  be  prepared  at  the  Cleveland  Society's  Show, 
Marton,  Middlesborough.  near  Stockton-on-Tees,  to  prove  to  the 
Agricultural  World,  the  superiority  of  HUSSEV'S  REAPER,  for  gen- 
eral farming  puri)oses.  We  stipulate,  however,  that  the  Machines  shall 
be  tested,  not  only  on  a  particular  patch  of  good  upstanding  grain,  where 
they  might,  perhaps,  prove  equal,  but  on  an  average  variety  of  condi- 
tion, as  to  short  and  laid  corn,  <S:c..  such  as  the  farmer  will  usualU-  meet 
with.  Its  capabilities  for  cutting  green  crops,  such  as  clover,  &c.,  shall 
also  be  proved.  It  must  be  evident  to  the  Farming  Public,  that  the 
Reaping  Machine  which  will  cut  a  crop  of  the  greatest  variety  and 


52  ENGLISH    PUBLICATIONS. 

difference  of  condition  must  possess  the  greatest  merit.     WM.  DRAY 
&  CO.,  Agricultural  Warehouse,  Swan-Lane,  London  Bridge. 

Accordingly  the  matter  was  arranged,  and  the  following  gentlemen 
were  called  upon  to  act  as  jurors: 

Henry  Stephen  Thompson,  Esq.,  of  Moat  Hall,  Foremaji;  Mr.  Wm. 
Lister  ofDunsa  Bank;  Mr.  Jno  Booth  of  Killerby;  Mr.  John  Parring- 
ton,  of  Brancepeth;  Mr.  Wm.  Wctherell,  of  Kirkbridge,  Darlington; 
Mr.  Rob't  Hymers,  of  Marton;  Mr.  Christopher  Cobson,  Linthorpe; 
Mr  Rob't  Fawcitt,  of  Ormsby;  Mr.  Joseph  Parrington,  of  Cross  Beck; 
Mr.  John  Outhwaite,  of  Bainesse;  Mr.  Geo.  Reed,  Hutton  Lowcross; 
Mr.  Thomas  Phillips,  of  Helmsley,  and  Mr.  Thomas  Outhwaite,  of 
Bainesse. 

The  following  were  the  conditions  to  be  submitted  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  respective  machines: 

"The  machines  to  be  tried  on  wheat  and  barley  in  such  order,  and 
for  such  lengths  of  time,  as  the  jurymen  may  direct.  The  jury  to  have 
full  power  to  use  any  means  they  deem  advisable,  in  order  to  put  the 
machines  to  the  severest  trial.  The  jury  in  deciding  on  the  merits  of 
the  two  machines;  to  take  into  their  consideration: 

1st.  Which  of  the  two  cuts  corn  in  the  best  manner. 

2d.  "  "     causes  the  least  waste 

3d.  "  "     does  the  most  work  in  a  given  time. 

4th.        "  "     leaves  the  corn  in  the  best  order  for  gathering 

and  binding. 

5th.        "  "     is  the  best  adapted  for  the  ridge  and  furrow. 

6th.        "  "     is  the  least  liable  to  get  out  of  order. 

7th.         "  "     at  first  cost  is  least  price. 

8th.        "  "     requires  the  least  amount  of  horse  labor. 

gth.        "  "     which  requires  the  least  amount  of  manual 

labor. 

As  no  report  was  made  of  the  trial  on  the  first  day,  the  following 
may  be  relied  upon: 

From  the  GatesJicad  Observer — September  2'jth,  1S51. 

It  was  curious  to  see  on  the  soil  of  a  Cleveland  F"arm,  two  imple- 
ments of  agriculture  lying  side  by  side  in  rivalry,  respectively  marked 
— "  M'Cormick,  inventor,  Chicago,  Illinois," — "  Hussey,  inventor,  Bal- 
timore, Maryland  " — America  competing  with  America,  on  English  soil. 

Mr.  Hussey  led  off.  An  attempt  was  made  to  keep  back  the  eager 
crowd;  but  their  curiosity  was  irrepressible — they  flocked  in  upon  the 
machine  so  that  the  experiment  could  not  be  properly  performed,  nor 
could  the  jury  duly  discharge  their  duties.— P.  C.  Thompson  did  his 
very  best — he  was  all  but  everywhere  at  once;  but  what  avails  a  police- 
force,  07ie  strong,  against  a  concourse  of  Yorkshire  yeomanry  and 
clowns?  It  was  requisite  that  he  should  have  recruits;  and  a  body  of 
self-elected  "specials"  came  to  his  aid,  who  succeeded  in  procuring 
approach  to  a  clear  course.  Mr.  Hussey  then  took  his  seat  anew, 
and  his  machine  cut  down  a  breadth  of  wheat  from  end  to  end  of  the 
field.     It  seemed  to  us  to  do  its  work  neatly  and  well.     The  wheat  was 


ENGLI.su    IM  ULICATIONS.  53 

cleverly  delivered  from  the  teeth  of  the  reaj^er,  and  handed  over  to  the 
binders  by  the  rake. 

I  To  William  Dray  and  Co?npany.'\ 

Stockton-on-Tees,  September  27th,  1851. 
Sir, — Having  been  in  communication  with  you  relative  to  the  trial 
of  your  Reaper  against  M'Cormick's,  and  feeling  deeply  interested  in 
the  introduction  of  the  new  Implement  into  this  district,  particularly 
one  of  so  much  importance  as  a  Reaping  Machine,  I  think  it  is  not 
probably  out  of  place  in  me  if  1  give  you  the  result  of  my  observations 
during  the  two  trials  which  have  taken  i)lace.  From  the  fact  that 
M'Ct)rmick's  Machine  obtained  the  prize  at  the  Great  Exliibition 
(though  I  do  not  pi  a  ftiy  faitJi  upon  awards  made  by  Agricultural  and 
other  societies,)  the  letter  of  Mr.  Pusey's,  in  the  Royal  Agricultural 
Socii'fy's /ourual,  the  various  newspaper  reports,  &c..  &c.;  it  was  natural 
for  me  to  be  predisposed  in  favor  of  M'Cormick's  Machine;  indeed 
Mr.  M.  had  a  prestage  in  his  favor,  which  of  course  operated  against 
the  "  Little  Hussey."  Previous  to  starting,  at  Marton,  on  Thursday, 
the  gentlemen  representing  M'Cormick's  machine  expressed  them- 
selves desirous  of  testing  the  machines  early  in  the  morning  when  the 
dew  was  on,  believing  that  their  machine  would  cut  the  grain  under 
such  circumstances,  and  that  yours  would  not.  Well,  on  Thursday  we 
had  a  deluge  rain,  the  surface  of  the  land  was  very  soft,  and  the  corn 
very  wet.  Everybody  there  was  astonished  to  see  your  machine 
brought  up  the  field  at  a  trot,  cutting  its  way  to  the  admiration  of  all 
present;  it  not  only  cut  to  the  leaning  corn,  but  it  cut  cross  over  the 
corn  leaning  to  the  left  of  the  postillion,  (I  presume  I  must  call  him.) 
McCormick's  machine  then  attempted  to  start  (he  made  two  or  three 
attempts)  but  the  attendant  confessed  it  was  impossible  to  do  so. 
That  there  might  be  no  mistake  about  it,  your  representatives  pro- 
posed that  their  machines  should  go  up  again;  the  jur\'  said  "  No!  we 
are  satisfied  that  your  machine  can  cut  it  under  the  present  circum- 
stances," and  so  ended  Thursday's  trial. 

Fro»i  the  Gate  si  lead  Observer,  October  4. 

We  left  the  members  and  friends  of  this  society,  on  Friday,  the 
26th  ult.,  on  the  Show-ground  at  Middlesbrough,  immersed  in  rain. 
The  scene  now  shifts  to  the  Townhall — where,  in  a  handsome  and 
spacious  apartment,  we  find  them  assembled  in  the  evening,  to  dinner, 
to  the  number  of  150,  with  the  Earl  of  Zetland  in  the  Chair,  and  in 
the  vice-chair  Mr.  John  Vaughan,  of  the  firm  of  Bolckow  &  X'aughan, 
iron-masters  and  manufacturers.  His  lordship  was  supported  by  the 
Rev.  W.  F  Wharton,  of  Birimngham,  and  Messrs.  J.  T.  Wharton, 
Henry  Pease.  G.  D.  Trotter,  Isaac  Wilson,  George  Coates.  J.  W.  Pease, 
George  Reade,  John  Pierson,  &c.;  and  the  vice-chair  b\-  Messrs.  C. 
Dryden,  W.  P\allows,  R.  Chilton,  &c.  In  the  body  of  the  hall  were 
the  leading  inhabitants  of  the  town  and  neighborhood;  also,  Mr. 
Burgess  and  Mr.  Samuelson  (who  had  come  to  the  meeting  with  Mr. 


54  ENGLISH    I'LBLICATIONS. 

McCormick's  reaping  machine),  Mr.  Hussey,  the  inventor  of  the 
reaper  which  bears  his  name,  and  Mr.  Pierce  and  Mr.  Stevens  (on  the 
part  of  Messrs.  Dray  &  Co.,  Agents  for  Mr.  Hussey.) 

On  the  removal  of  the  cloth,  the  noble  Chairman— (behind  whose 
seat  was  inscribed  on  the  wall  in  conspicuous  characters,  "  Success  to 
the  Cleveland  Agricultural  Society— Eighteenth  Anniversary  "—gave 
the  customary  loyal  toasts,  and  took  occasion  to  observe,  that  had  it 
not  been  for  the  Exhibition  of  Industry,  projected  by  Prince  Albert, 
the  "  Reaping  Machine,"  from  which  he  anticipated  great  benefits  to 
agriculture,  would  not  have  been  introduced  into  this  country. 
(Applause.) 

The  Earl  of  Zetland  again  referred  to  the  reaping  machine.  Such 
an  aid  to  agriculture,  his  lordship  observed,  was  needed  in  Cleveland 
and  elsewhere. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Wharton,  of  Skelton  Castle,  said  he  had  never  witnessed 
so  much  enthusiasm  in  an  agricultural  district  as  was  displayed  in  con- 
nection with  the  reaping  machine.  Had  the  day  been  fine  the  num- 
ber of  spectators  present  yesterday  (Thursday)  would  have  been  at 
least  fourfold  what  it  was.  Bad  as  the  weather  was,  not  only  was 
there  a  large  muster  of  members  of  the  society,  but  803  persons,  many 
of  them  from  a  considerable  distance  paid  sixpence  each  for  admis- 
sion to  the  ground. — The  trial  of  the  rival  machines  was,  unfortunately, 
so  short,  and  conducted  under  such  adverse  circumstances,  that  it  was 
impossible  to  pronounce  any  opinion  as  to  their  relative  merits;  but 
what  he  saw  of  Hussey's  was  as  satisfactory  as  he  could  expect. 
(Applause.) 

Mr.  George  Reade,  of  Hutton  Lowcross,  said,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  boisterous  weather,  the  receipts  of  the  society  at  Ormesby  and 
Middlesbrough  would  have  been  marvellous.  As  it  was,  there  was  a 
large  assemblage  to  witness  the  trial  of  the  American  reaping  ma- 
chines, and  they  were  regarded  with  an  anxious  desire  that  they  might 
succeed.  Indeed,  let  any  ingenious  mechanic — he  cared  not  whether 
he  w^as  English,  Scotch,  Irish,  American,  or  German — come  before  a 
jury  of  the  farmers  of  Cleveland  with  an  implement  or  machine  for 
the  improvement  of  Agriculture,  and  it  would  be  judged  with  candor, 
impartiality  and  uprightness,  and  the  inventor  should  go  home  satis- 
fied that  he  had  experienced  fair  play.     (Applause.) 

Mr.  Isaac  Wilson  proposed  the  health  of  "The  Strangers."  To 
those  gentlemen  the  members  were  greatly  indebted  for  their  attend- 
ance. Had  the  weather  permitted,  they  would  all  have  experienced 
much  pleasure  from  an  inspection  of  the  celebrated  reaping  machines 
in  action,  and  the  ingenious  draining  plough  of  Mr.  Prowler,  which  did 
him  very  much  credit.  (The  toast  was  drank  with  musical  honors.) 
Mr.  Pierce,  the  representative  of  Dray  &  Co.,  being  called  upon  to 
respond,  rose  and  said,  bad  as  the  weather  had  been,  he  had  been  de- 
lighted with  his  visit  to  Middlesbrough.  The  kindness  of  the  inhab- 
itants soon  made  him  no  stranger.  He  was  not  four  and  twenty  hours 
in  the  place  before  he  fraternized  with  the  whole  parish.  (Laughter.) 
He  rejoiced  that   Mr.  Hussey's  reaping  machine  was  now  in  the  hands 


kn(;lisii  iTin.icA  1  kins. 


of  a  jury  of  Cleveland  farnicrs.  Jt  woiilcl  have  a  fair,  honest,  impar- 
tial trial;  and  what  more  could  an  IuiL,di.shman  desire.  (Aj^plause.) 
He  thanked  the  company  for  the  honor  which  the\'  had  conferred  upon 
their  visitors  from  a  distance,  and  wished  continued  «?uccess  to  their 
fiourishintj  society.     (Applause.) 

Mr.  Hussey  was  ne.\t  called  uijon.  and  said  thai  he  had  for  many 
years  been  buildint^  machines  in  .America.  If  he  had  had  the  least 
idea  of  the  interest  which  JMij^land  would  take  in  the  reapint^  of  crops 
b\'  machiner)',  it  would  iiave  been  a  difficult  thin^^  to  keep  him  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Atlantic;  and  he  knew  not,  now,  after  the  reception 
which  he  had  met  with,  how  he  should  ever  get  home  a_L;ain.  ( .\p- 
plause  and  laughter.) 

Mr.  Steevens,  Dray  &  Co.'s  engineer,  was  also  called  upon  to  rise, 
and  stated  that  his  employers  had  purchased  Mr.  Hussey's  machine 
because  they  saw  it  to  be  the  best,  and  they  would  meet  every  com- 
petitor in  the  three  kingdoms,  fearless  of  the  result.     (Cheers.) 

[It  should  be  statetl  that  Messrs.  Fowler,  Burgess.  Samuelson,*  Src, 
had  by  this  time  left  the  hall,  and  therefore  could  not  be  called  upon.] 

Mr.  Parrington,  having  read  the  award,  announced  that  a  second 
trial  of  McCormick's  and  Hussey's  reaping  machines  would  be  made, 
if  the  weather  were  favorable,  on  the  following  morning  (Saturday ), 
at  9  o'clock,  at  Mr.  Fawcitt's  farm.  —The  jury,  appointed  by  the  com- 
mittee, would  give  no  opinion  on  the  trial  of  the  previous  day  (Thurs- 
da\-.)  That  would  go  for  nothing.  They  would  devote  the  whole  of 
next  da\-,  if  necessary,  to  a  full,  fair,  and  satisfactory  trial  of  the  two 
machines.     (Applause.) 

On  Saturday  morning,  the  weather  was  so  far  favorable  that  there 
was  no  rain.  The  trial,  therefore,  took  place.  There  was  a  numerous 
gathering  of  land-owners,  farmers,  laborers,  &c.,  but  not  so  crowded  a 
muster  as  to  obstruct  the  experiment. 

The  foreman  of  the  jury,  Mr.  Thompson,  being  unavoidably  absent, 
his  place  was  supj^lied  by  the  Rev.  \V.  F.  Wharton,  of  Birmingham. 
Messrs.  Lister,  Outhwaite,  (J.  and  T.  P.)  Booth,  Wetherell,  Phillip^--, 
and  Dobson,  were  also  absent.  Their  places  were  filled  b\'  Mr.  Will 
iam  Morley,  Dishforth;  INIr.  Thomas  Parrington,  Marton;  Mr.  J.  T. 
Wharton.  Shelton  Castle;  Mr.  Wm.  llill.  Staunton;  Mr.  Joseph  Coul- 
son,  Sexhow;  Mr.  Joseph  Harrison,  White  House;  Mr.  John  Mason 
Hopper,  Marton. 

The  trial  commenced  in  a  level  enclosure,  adjoining  the  road  from 
Stockton  and  Middlesbrough  to  Ormesby  Hall,  (the  residence  of  Sir 
Wm.  Pennyman,  Bart.)  The  wheat  was  laid.  We  have  seen  a  crop  in 
worse  condition,  but  not  often.  The  straw  was  damp  and  soft.  The 
soil  was  loamy  and  light,  and  the  field  free  from  wet;  it  was  to  Mr. 
Fawcitt's  credit  that  he  was  able  to  place  such  a  field  at  the  service  of 
the  society  under  the  circumstances;  still,  the  earth  was  in  a  state  to 
clog  the  wheels  of  the  reapers.  Altogether,  the  test  was  a  severe  one 
for   the   competitors.     Mr.  Samuelson,   Mr.  Burgess,   and    Mr.  D.  C. 


*McCormick's  aiients. 


56  ENGLISH    ITHI, RATIONS. 

Mackenzie,  (the  son  of  an  emigrant  from  Ivernesse)  were  in  charge  of 
Mr.  McCormick's  Machine.  The  other  was  in  the  hands  of  the  in- 
ventor himself,  Mr.  Hussey,  and  of  Mr.  Pierce  and  Mr.  Steevens  (who 
represented  the  agents,  Messrs.  Dray  &  Co.) 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Wharton,  (the  jury,  competitors,  &c.  having  gath- 
ered round  him  on  the  field,  on  Saturday  morning,)  announced  that, 
after  the  lapse  of  an  hour,  when  the  corn  would  be  in  such  a  condition 
that  Mr.  Fawcitt,  as  he  had  just  said,  would,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, reap  it  himself,  the  trial  would  commence. 

The  question  was.  now,  which  of  the  two  machines  should  begin. 
A  "  toss  "  gave  the  chance  to  Mr.  Pierce,  and  he  requested  Mr.  Burgess 
to  lead  off. 

M'Cormick's  machine  then  got  into  action,  taking  the  crop  in  the 
most  favorable  manner — that  is,  leaning  toward  the  knife.  Passing 
along  the  field,  (which  was  from  two  to  three  hundred  yards  in  length,) 
it  cut  down  a  breadth  of  little  more  than  four  feet.  The  corn  being 
iaid,  the  flier,  of  course  did  not  come  into  practical  operation;  nor  was 
it  necessary  that  it  should  do  so — the  elements  having  already  done 
its  work.     The  corn  was  well  cut — the  stubble  a  little  too  high. 

Another  breadth  or  two  having  been  cut,  Hussey's  machine 
followed,  and  cut  some  breadths — somewhat  wider  than  M'Cormick's, 
and  closer  to  the  ground. 

Mackenzie,  when  we  pointed  out  the  shorter  stubble  of  his  rival, 
admitted  the  fact,  but  said  there  would  be  no  difficulty — not  the 
slightest — in  bringing  Mr.  M'Cormick's  knife  nearer  to  the  ground. 
In  America,  however,  where  the  straw  is  comparatively  of  little  or  no 
\alue,  the  stubble  is  no  object,  and  there  arc  some  advantages  in  cut- 
ti'ig  high. 

A  backer  of  M'Cormick's  machine  (and  many  bets  have  been  laid 
on  the  two  machines)  urged  that  Hussey's  would  spoil  clover  when 
going  among  wheat.  The  reply  was,  that  Hussey's  knife  could  be 
raised  or  depressed  at  jileasure. 

The  next  test  was  cutting  the  crop  across  ridge  and  furrow,  so  that 
the  corn  was  lying  neither  to  nor  from  the  knife,  but  sidewise.  Both 
the  machines  cut  the  corn  under  these  circumstances — Hussey's  the 
cleaner  of  the  two. 

The  jury  then  required  the  experiment  to  be  made  along  the  field, 
with  the  corn  lying  from  the  knife. 

Mr.  Hussey  consented,  and  the  machine  succeeded  in  cutting  the 
corn — leaving  a  tolerable  stubble,  but  not  so  short  and  regular  as 
l)efore. 

M'Cormick's  machine  was  then  tried,  and  failed.  As  it  scoured 
over  the  corn,  making  sad  havock,  there  were  loud  cries  of  ".Stop!  stop! 
you're  wasting  it!" 

Barley  was  next  cut,  with  much  the  same  result.  In  this  case,  Mr. 
Hussey  adjusted  his  platform  for  discharging  the  corn  at  the  side. 

The  binders  being  summoned  before  the  jury,  and  asked  which  of 
the  two  machines  they  preferred,  so  far  as  their  particular  department 
was  concerned — decided,  4  for  M'Cormick's,  6  for  Hussey's. 


ENGLISH    I'LHLlCATiONS.  67 

Clover  was  now  to  be  tried,  but  at  this  sta^e  of  the  proceedings  we 
left  the  tield.  Clover-cutting,  we  should  state,  formed  no  part  of  the 
competition.  The  agreement  merely  refers  to  wheat  and  barley. 
M'Cormick's  machine  is  not  intended  for  clover-cutting;  but  some  of 
the  land  owners  and  farmers  were  anxious  to  see  clover  cut  by  IIus- 
scy's  machine.  Mr.  Thompson,  we  understand,  had  retiuested  his 
proxy  to  have  the  experiment  made.  We  were  told  on  the  ground 
that  the  machine  had  already  been  tried  on  cloxer  at  Newport,  near 
Middlesbrough,  and  "cut  it  well:  —  If  the  weather  had  been  dry,  it 
would  have  cut  it  beautifulls." 

It  was  pleasant  to  mark  the  anxiety  and  watchfulness  of  the  gentle- 
men in  charge  of  the  two  machines.  Mr.  M'Cormick  suffered  no  loss 
from  his  absence,  he  was  so  admirably  represented;  and  in  Messrs. 
Pierce  and  Steevens,  Dray  &  Co.  had  invaluable  agents — on  the  Thurs- 
day in  particular,  when  a  storm,  which  ravaged  land  and  sea.  could  not 
deter  them  or  Mr.  Hussey,  from  practically  attesting  the  reaper's 
prowess  in  the  field.  The  trial,  throughout,  was  conducted  with  a 
fidelity  to  self  which  would  not  throw  a  point  away,  and  a  courtesy  to 
rivals  which  should  ever  mark  honorable  competition. 

[  h'ro)}i  a  Correspondent.  ] 

Stockton,  Moxdav,  September  29. — A  report  reached  me.  after  I 
left  the  farm,  that  Hussey's  machine  cut  the  barley  very  much  better 
than  M'Cormick's.  It  came  to  me  however,  through  parties  who 
might  fairly  be  suspected  of  a  bias,  and  therefore  I  kept  m\'  judgment 
in  suspense  until  I  could  obtain  information  on  which  I  could  more 
implicitly  rely.  This  1  have  now  got.  I  have  been  to  the  farm  again 
to-day,  and  made  inquiries  of  persons  who  saw  the  completion  of  the 
trial.  M'Cormick's  machine  did  not  cut  the  barley  so  well  as  Hussey's. 
It  cut  it  much  too  high;  and  as  the  crop  was  very  much  laid,  the  heads 
only,  in  many  cases  were  cut  off.  We  had  Husse\-'s  machine  in  oper- 
ation to-day,  both  on  barley  and  wheat,  and  matle  better  work  than 
on  Saturday.  IVIr.  P'awcitt  worked  it  with  the  greatest  ease.  I  think 
he  would  soon  beat  the  inventor  himself.  Even  I,  townsman  as  I  am, 
made  fair  work;  and  in  an  hour  or  two's  practice,  I  would  engage  to 
cut  a  crop  in  a  manner  not  to  be  found  fault  with.  Vou  may  safely 
say  that  any  ordinary  workman  about  a  farm  would  be  able  to  manage 
the  machine;  and  when  I  say  this  of  Hussey's,  it  is  also  true  of  M'Cor- 
mick's. The  one  may  be  a  better  machine  than  the  other,  but  the 
merits  of  either  of  them  may  be  brought  into  practical  action  by  a  la- 
borer of  average  intelligence  and  skill.  It  is  the  ojiinion  of  farmers 
and  others  witli  whom  I  have  con\'ersed.  that  the  saving  jier  acre,  by 
the  use  of  Husse\''s  machine,  would  be  about  5s. 

At  the  close  of  the  contest  on  Saturda^^  the  knives  of  the  two  ma- 
chines were  placed  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Robinson,  engineer  to  Mr. 
Bellerby,  of  York,  that  he  might  report  thereon,  and  on  the  machinery 
generally,  to  the  jury. 

Wednesd.w,  October  i. — The  Marcpiis  of  Londonderr\',  and  several 


58  ENGLISH    l'l'15LICAT10N.S. 

Other  gentlemen,  have  visited   Mr.  Fawcitt's   farm,  to  sec  the  machine 

at  work. 

The  laurels  so  recently  placed  upon  the  brow  of  Mr.  M  Lormick, 
have  been  plucked  off— not  wholly,  but  in  great  part— by  his  fellow 
countryman,  Mr.  Hussey. 

We  would  enlarge  upon  this  theme,  but  our  report  has  left  us  little 
room.  We  would  only  say,  that  while  the  farmers  of  Cleveland,  and 
of  the  Island  generally,  are  turning  their  attention  to  agricultural  im- 
provement— by  reaping  machines,  draining  ploughs,  and  steam  ploughs 
—we  would  say  to  them,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Hussey  to  the  Cleve- 
land horse-jockey,  when  his  machine  was  ready  for  its  work—"  Now, 

THEN,  GO  .ahead!" 

REPORT    OF   THE  JURY. 

"  The  Jury  regret  exceedingly  the  most  unfavorable  state  of  the 
weather  on  the  days  of  trial,  ^a  perfect  hurricane  raging  during  the 
whole  of  the  first  day,)  and  their  consequent  inability  to  make  so  full 
and  satisfactory  a  trial  as  they  could  have  wished. 

"The  Machines  were  tested  on  a  crop  of  Wheat,  computed  at  25 
bushels  per  acre,  very  short  in  the  Straw,  and  if  possible,  more  laid 
than  the  Wheat. 

"  The  Jury,  taking  the  different  points  submitted  to  then"  consider- 
ation, in  the  order  as  mentioned: — 

"I. Their  unanimous  opinion,  that  Mr.  Hussey's  Machine,  as  ex- 
hibited by  Messrs.  Wm.  Dray  &  Co.,  cut  the  corn  in  the  best  manner, 
especially  across  ridge  and  furrow,  and  when  the  machine  was  work- 
ing in  the  direction  of  the  corn  laid. 

"  2.— By  a  majority  of  eleven  to  one,  that  Mr.  Hussey's  Machine 
caused  the  least  waste. 

"3. Taking  the   breadth  of  the  two  machine's  into  consideration, 

that  of  Mr.  Hussey  did  most  work. 

"4._That  Mr.  Hussey's  Machine  leaves  the  cut  corn  in  the  best 
order  for  gathering  and  binding.  This  question  was  submitted  to  the 
laborers  employed  on  the  occasion,  and  decided  by  them,  as  above,  by 

a  majority  of  6  to  4.  ,  •       ■    1 

"  5.— Their  unanimous  opinion  that  Mr.  Hussey's  Machine  is  best 
adapted  for  ridge  and  furrow. 

"  6.— This  question  was  referred  by  the  Jury  to  Mr.  Robinson,  fore- 
man to  Messrs.  Bellerby,  of  York,  a  practical  Mechanic  of  acknowl- 
edged ability,  whose  report  is  appended  below. 

"7.— That  Mr.  Hussey's  Machine  at  first  cost  is  less  price. 

"8,  9.— The  Jury  decline  to  express  a  decided  opinion  on  these 
points  in  consequence  of  the  state  of  the  weather. 

"The  trials  took  place  on  the  farm  of  Robert  Fawcitt,  of  Ormsby, 
near  Marlbro'-on-Tees,  who  in  the  most  liberal  and  disinterested  spirit 
allowed  his  crops  to  be  trodden  down  and  damaged  to  a  very  great 
extent,  especially  on  the  25th,  when  in  spite  of  the  storm  an  immense 
crowd  assembled  to  witness  the  trials. 


li.NCil.ISH    ILIILICATIONS.  59 

"The  Jury  cannot  conclude  their  Report,  without  expressing  the 
great  pleasure  they  have  derived  from  seeing  two  Machines  brought 
into  competition,  that  were  able  to  do  such  very  good  work,  and  also 
at  witnessing  the  friendly,  straightforward,  and  honorable  way  in 
which  the  Exhibitors  of  the  respecti\c  Machines  met  on  this  occasion. 
Signed  on  behalf  of  the  jury, 

\V.  F.  WI'IA'RToX.  Foreman. 


Mr.  Robinson's  Riport  on  Question  6. 

Having  carefully  examined  both  machines,  and  given  the  subject 
due  consideration,  I  am  of  opinion  that  M'Cormick's  Reaping  ^la- 
chine,  as  at  present  made,  is  most  liable  to  get  out  of  order. 

(Signed,)         THOMAS  ROBINSON. 

York,  30///  Scptcnibcr,  iS;i. 


[  From  the  London  Mercantile  Journal .  ] 

The  Great  Exhibition  and  Transatlantic  Superiority  over 
European  Inc.enuitv — American  Reaping  Machines. — The  close  of 
the  Crystal  Palace  has  given  rise  to  many  panegyrics,  and  we  would 
not  for  one  moment  detract  from  its  merits;  it  has  been  deservedly 
the  admiration  of  the  world,  and  visited  by  thousands  of  its  inhabit- 
ants. Brought  into  life  by  the  most  eminent  men,  and  supported  by 
royalty;  the  means  taken  were  such  as  no  private  individual  could 
have  accomplished;  every  exertion  was  used  to  obtain  the  choicest 
relics  that  the  earth  could  produce;  almost  every  country  vied  in  ex- 
hibiting the  arts  and  treasures  of  its  products  and  manufactures,  and 
were  with  one  exception,  considered  eminently  successful.  The  United 
States  of  America,  however,  was  thought  to  be  deficient,  and  in  one 
or  two  cases  some  rather  strong  and  even  coarse  remarks  were  indulged 
in.  But  what  are  the  results?  France  can  boast  of  the  richness  of 
its  silks  and  artificial  manufactures,  and  England  of  its  machinery;  but 
we  find  that  our  own  newspapers  are  filled  with  admiration  at  the  in- 
ventions of  Brother  Jonathan,  We  shall  only  slightly  touch  upon  the 
sensation  produced  by  the  splendid  performance  of  the  American 
yacht,  and  the  dexterity  displa\'ed  in  the  lock-picking,  which  was  previ- 
ously deemed  impracticable.  But  it  may  be  said  that  these  are  trifling 
matters  in  a  national  point  of  view;  still,  facts  have  been  elicited  by 
these  ap[)arent  trifling  incidents,  for  we  find  that  the  superior  build  of 
the  little  American  \'acht  involves  a  principle — it  being  now  admitted 
that  in  nautical  matters  the  .\mericans  are  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  other 
nations  in  their  construction  of  their  merchant  \essels,  and  also  in  the 
equipment  of  their  ships  of  war.  On  the  land  they  are  equally  success- 
ful; their  reaping  machines  have  astonished  our  agriculturists.  We  ex- 
tract from  the  Gateshead  Observer,  and  other  local  papers,  the  sur- 
prising performances  of  Hussey's  and  M'Cormick's  machines.  Our 
readers  are  aware  that  there  are  two  rival  parties  competing  their 
powers  on  British  grouml.  ami  without  entering  into  the  question  as 
to  which  of  the  two  performed  their  work  in  the  best  manner,  we  copy 


60  ENGLISH    PUBLICATIONS. 

the  result  of  the  trial.     The  Durham  .Advertiser  states  that  the  per- 
formance took  place  at  IMiddlesbro,  and  says: 

••  Few  subjects  have  created  a  greater  sensation  in  the  agricultural 
world  than  the  recent  introduction  into  the  country  of  the  reaping 
machines  of  Mr.  IM'Cormick.  and  the  subsequent  appearance  of  a  rival, 
of  no  inferior  description,  in  a  similar  implement  from  Mr.  Hussey. 
The  interesting  trial  of  the  two  in  competition,  intended  to  have  taken 
place  on  Thursday  last,  was  postponed,  in  consequence  of  the  torrents 
of  rain,  until  Saturday,  when,  under  the  superintendence  of  a  very  effi- 
cient jury  empanelled  to  decide  the  respective  merits  of  the  two  imple- 
ments, the  contest  came  off.  The  compact  form  of  Hussey's  iniple- 
ment  was  in  its  favor,  though  from  the  notoriety  of  M'Cormick's  at 
Mr.  Mechi's  farm,  the  general  preference  was  at  first  on  his  side. 
M'Cormick's  machine  was  first  tried  against  the  inclination  of  the  corn, 
and  completed  its  portion  in  very  good  style,  leaving  the  sheaves  in 
a  handy  manner  at  the  side  of  the  furrow.  Hussey's  completed  a 
similar  breadth,  but  deposited  the  sheaves  behind,  and  consequently 
several  binders  were  required  to  follow  the  machine  to  clearthe  course 
for  cutting  the  next  breadth,  an  imperfection,  which,  however,  it  was 
understood  could  be  easily  remedied,  and  the  back  deliver  replaced 
by  a  side  one.  This  breadth  was  closer  cut  than  the  one  executed  by 
M'Cormick's  reaper.  The  two  were  then  tried  across  the  ridge,  where 
Hussey's  implement  carried  the  palm,  M'Cormick's  leaving  a  very 
considerable  portion  of  the  straw  standing  behind  it;  and  the  last  trial 
upon  the  wheat,  in  the  direction  of  the  lean  of  the  wheat,  Hussey's 
machine  did  its  work  very  fairly,  while  M'Cormick's  was  obliged  to 
be  stopped  in  its  course,  after  having  taken  the  heads  of  the  wheat, 
but  left  the  whole  of  the  straw  standing.  At  this  time  two  opinions 
did  not  exist  among  the  company  present — Hussey's  being  the  favor- 
ite. The  trial  was  then  carried  to  some  barley,  where  Hussey's  again 
succeeded  in  obtaining  public  favor.  The  more  compact  form  of 
Hussey's  implement,  as  well  as  the  superiority  of  the  clipping  action 
over  the  cutting  action  of  M'Cormick's,  entitle  it  to  a  greater  share  of 
public  favor,  and  as  the  advantages  of  a  side  delivery  can  be  easily 
applied  to  it,  it  will  doubtless,  becomethe  more  general  in  use  amongst 
the  farmers.  We  cannot,  however,  but  think  that  some  mechanical 
process  might  be  substituted  for  raking  the  sheaf  from  the  receiving 
board,  and  this  with  a  few  other  mechanical  improvements,  would,  we 
think,  make  Hussey's  reaping  machine  a  perfect,  useful,  and  econom- 
ical agricultural  implement.  The  latter  may  be  also  advantageously 
applied  to  the  cutting  of  clover  crops,  which  is  quite  out  of  the  ques- 
tion with  the  farmer.  Another  Correspondent  on  this  subject  says:— 
"  The  jury  did  not  on  Saturday  announce  their  decision,  nor  have  they 
yet  made  a  report.  Nineteen  farmers  out  of  twenty  who  witnessed 
the  trial  were  in  favor  of  Hussey's  machine." 

The  Gateshead  Observer,  remarks:—"  The  great  Cleveland  contest 
between  the  two  American,  reaping  machines,  respectively  invented 
by  Mr.  M'Cormick,  of  Chicago,  and  Mr.  Hussey,  of  Baltimore,  origi- 
nally appointed  for  Thursday,  the   25th  ult.,  frustrated,  for  a  time  by 


li.S(.LlSll    I'LBLICATIO.NS.  ('<! 

the  dclii<;e  aiiJ  hurricane  of  that  chsastrous  da)-,  came  off  on  Satur- 
day, the  27th.  The  trial  was  one  of  great  severit)',  the  crops  of 
Wheat  and  liarley  were  laid,  and  the  straw  damp  and  soft.  The 
laurels  so  recently  placed  upon  the  brow  of  Mr.  M'Cormick  have  been 
plucked  off —  not  wholly,  but  in  great  part — by  his  fellow  countryman. 
Mr.  Husscy.  Both  the  machines  proved  their  ability  to  do  good  work, 
but  Mr.  Musscy's  attested  its  superiority;  and  the  Knglish  farmer  has 
now  seen,  thanks  to  Prince  Albert  and  the  Exhibition  of  Works  of 
Intlustry,  that  his  corn  and  grasses,  hitherto  slowly  and  laboriously 
reaped  with  the  sickle  and  the  scythe,  may  now  be  plained  off  the 
land,  in  five  feet  breadth,  as  rapidly  as  a  horse  can  trot." 

"A  trial  has  taken  place  before  the  Cleveland  Agricultural  Society 
of  the  respective  merits  of  M'Cormick's  and  Hussey's  American  Reap- 
ing Machines,  and  the  report  of  the  jury  of  practical  men,  appointed 
by  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  decide  the  question  of  merit  is  favor- 
able to  the  latter  Implement.     This  Decision  throws  considerable 

DOUBT   UPON    THE    JUSTICE    OF    THE    AWARD    OF    A     GREAT    MEDAL    AT    THE 

EXHIBITION  TO  M'Cokmick's." — Lo)ido)i  Timcs,  Oct.  7. 


Following  upon  its  success  at  Cleveland,  the  proprietors  were  in- 
vited to  exhibit  the  Machine  at  the  Barnard  Castle  Agricultural 
Society,  Lord  Harry  W dine,  president. 

Barnard  Castle,  Oct.  8,  185 1. 

The  undersigned  President,  \^icc  Presidents,  and  members  of  the 
Barnard  Castle  Agricultural  Society  and  others  who  have  witnessed  the 
working  of  the  American  Reaping  Machine,  invented  by  Mr.  Hussey, 

do    CERTIFY   THEIR     UNQUALIFIED    APPROVAL     OF     ITS     OPERATIONS     AND 
ENTIRE    SUCCESS. 

LORD  HARRY  VANE,  President. 
W.  F.  WHARTON.  Vice  President. 

John  Mitchell,  V.  P.,  Forcett  Hall,  Yorkshire,  Esq. 

}.  S.  Edgar,  M.  D.,  Barnard  Castle,  Esq. 

John  Dickonson  Holmes.  Barnard  Castle,  Solicitor. 

George  P.  Harrison,  Forcett,  Yorkshire,  Esq.,  Farmer. 

Edward  Scaith,  Kcverston.  near  Darlington.  Esq.,  Farmer,  and 
Assistant  Draining  Commissioner. 

Thomas  Robinson,  Mutton  Hall,  near  Richmond,  Yorkshire,  Esq., 
Farmer. 

Richard  Ka\',  Forcett  Valle>',  near  Darlington,  P^sq.,  Farmer. 

William  Harrison,  Greta  Bridge,  Yorkshire,  Esq.,  Farmer. 

Thomas  Carter,  Scales,  near  Richmond,  Esq..  Farmer. 

Jno.  Whitfield,  London,  Esq. 

Rev.  Thomas  Boys  Croome,  Scotland. 

William  Watson,  Junr.,  Barnard  Castle,  Solicitor. 

J.  R.  IMonkhouse.  Barnard  Castle.  IVLmufacturer. 

Samuel  Nelson,  of  Scaife  House,  near  Staindrop,  Durham,  Esq., 
Farmer. 

William  Thompson,  Lanehead,  near  Ovington,  Yorkshire,  Esq., 
Farmer. 


62  ENGLISH    PUBLICATIONS. 

John  Ethwaite,  Bainesse,  near  Catterick,  Yorkshire,  Farmer. 

Rev.  George  Dugard,  Barnard  Castle,  Incumbent  of  Yorkshire, 
Farmer. 

WILLIAM  WATSON,  Secretary  of  the  Barnard  Agricultural 
Association. 


From  the  Darlington  a?id  Stockto?i,  England,  Times,  Oct.  1 1. 

B.\KNARD  Castle  Agricultural  Society. 

Mr.  Hiisscy  s  Reapi?ig  Maclmie. 

Great  interest  was  excited  in  Barnardcastle  and  its  neighborhood 
on  Tuesday  last,  by  the  announcement  that  Mr.  Hussey's  reaping  ma- 
chine would  be  exhibited  at  the  forthcoming  meeting  of  the  Barnard 
castle  Agricultural  Society;  and  that  a  trial  of  its  powers  would  be 
made  previous  to  the  meeting.  Accordingly,  on  Tuesday  last,  the 
machine  was  brought  into  operation  in  a  field  of  barley,  belonging  to 
Mr.  George  White,  of  Stainton,  near  Barnardcastle,  which  it  cut 
admirably  well.  The  Rev.  W^  F.  W'harton,  and  other  gentlemen  in 
the  vicinity,  besides  a  vast  number  of  farmers,  were  present.  The 
Judges  on  the  occasion  were  H.  S.  Thompson,  Esq.  of  Moat  Hall, 
(one  of  the  Agricultural  Jury  of  the  Great  Exhibition),  W.  Lister, 
Esq.,  of  Dunsa  Bank;  and  T.  Robinson,  Esq.,  of  Hutton.  Luncheon 
was  provided  for  a  large  party  in  an  out-building  near  the  scene  of 
the  experiments,  and  it  is  a  fact  worthy  of  notice,  that  after  dinner, 
Mr.  Thompson  proposed  the  health  of  Mr.  Hussey  (who  was  present) 
with  great  fervour,  and  spoke  of  the  disadvantages  under  which  Mr, 
Hussey's  Machine  had  labored  when  tried  against  M'Cormick's  for  the 
Great  Exhibition  Medal;  Mr.  Hussey  not  being  in  the  country  at  that 
time,  and  no  one  being  present  who  understood  the  adjusting  or  work- 
ing of  the  implement.  Mr.  Thompson  said  he  was  now  so  thoroughly 
satisfied  of  its  great  merits,  that  he  would  do  his  best  to  get  a  medal 
awarded  to  it.  After  luncheon,  the  machine  was  taken  to  the  grounds 
of  Mr,  Adamson,  and  tried  upon  a  field  of  oats,  which  were  so  laid  as 
to  form  a  very  severe  test  to  the  machine,  but  it  nevertheless  was  suc- 
cessful there  also.  The  party  retired  greatly  pleased  with  it,  and  some 
of  the  most  wary  agriculturists  ordered  machines  ujion  the  ground. — On 
W'ednesday  morning,  a  large  assemblage  of  agriculturists  met  on  the 
farm  of  Mr.  F.  Atkinson,  Westwood,  Startforth,  to  see  the  machine  cut 
a  field  of  wheat,  and  there  again  the  experiment  yielded  all  that 
even  its  inventor  could  desire.  We  understand  that  a  large  number 
of  orders  were  given  for  machines  by  the  farmers  present,  which  is 
perhaps  the  very  best  test  of  their  views  in  the  matter.  The  general 
impression  seemed  to  be  that  it  would  prove  of  incalculable  \alue  to 
the  agricultural  interest. 

At  about  3  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  a  large  party  sat  down  to  a 
sumptuous  dinner  at  the  King's  Head  Inn.  Lord  Harry  Vane,  pre- 
sided, and  the  Rev.  W.  F.  Wharton  occupied  the  vice-chair.  After 
dinner  the  usual  loyal  toasts  having  been  proposed,  the  vice  chair  pro- 
posed the  health  of  Mr.  Hussey;  that  gentleman,  he  said,  had   con- 


KNGLISH    J'LIILICATIONS.  63 

trihutcd  to  their  gratification  and  interest  in  bringing  his  invention 
tliere  for  trial;  the  result  of  that  trial  liad  exceeded  everything  they 
could  have  previously  imagined  or  iioped;  and  therefore  he  begged 
they  would  excuse  him  for  proposing  this  health  so  early,  as  Mr.  Hus- 
scy  and  his  agent's  representative  Mr  Pierce,  had  to  leave  by  the  first 
train  from  Darlington,  which  they  had  then  but  sufficient  time  to 
reach.  He  i)ro[)oscd  the  healths  of  Mr.  Hussey  and  of  the  enterpris- 
ing firm.  Messrs.  Dray  &  Co.,  who  had  undertaken  to  bring  that  ma- 
chine into  the  British  market  The  toast  was  drank  with  honors.  Mr. 
Ilussey  briefly  returned  thanks. 

After  some  further  proceedings,  the  Vice-Chairman  proposed  the 
health  of  the  President.     Lord  Harry  Vane  responded. 

The  healths  of  the  Vice-Presidents  were  proposed.  Mr.  Mitchell 
briefly  responded.  Mr.  Wharton  in  acknowledging  the  toast,  took  the 
opportunity  of  again  bringing  before  the  meeting  the  merits  of  the  inven- 
tion which  had  been  the  object  of  that  day's  attraction.  It  had  been 
most  unfortunate  that  when  the  trial  took  place  for  the  prize  of  the 
great  exhibition,  Mr.  Hussey  had  not  arrived  in  this  country — nobod\- 
knew  how  it  was  managed,  whilst  M'Cormick's  was  properly  attended 
to.  Mr.  Hussey'  ■  machine  did  no  work,  and  Mr.  ]\rCormick  took  the 
medal.  No  sooner  did  Mr.  Hussey  arrive  than  he  prayed  for  a  further 
trial,  but  the  Jury  could  not  grant  it.  All  difficulty  was  removed  by 
Mr.  M'Cormick  throwing  down  the  gauntlet.  The  trial  came  off  in 
Cleveland — the  result  was  clear  and  satisfactory  in  favor  of  Mr.  Hus- 
sey's  machine  as  decidedly  superior.  Mr.  Thompson,  of  Moat  Hall, 
one  of  the  Great  Exhibition  Jury,  was  also  one  of  the  Judges  in  Cleve- 
land, and  was  so  satisfied  on  the  subject  that  he  left,  determined  to 
urge  for  a  medal  for  Mr.  Hussey.  It  must  be  a  source  of  pleasure  to 
all,  to  find  that  justice  was  thus  about  to  be  done  to  a  worthy,  modest 
and  unassuming  man. 


From  the  Darlingtoii  and  Stockton  Ti)ncs,  October  iith,  185 1. 
The  Re.\ping  Machines  at  Barnardcastle. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  Darlington  and  Stockton  Times. 

Sir: — I  beg  to  trouble  you  with  a  few  particulars  of  Mr.  Hussey's 
American  Reaping  Machine,  which  I  yesterday  saw  working  in  a  field 
near  Barnardcastle.  I  am  not  a  farmer,  and  oi'  course  cannot  be  thor- 
oughly ail  fait  at  describing  an  agricultural  implement,  nor  am  I  suf- 
ficiently versed  in  mechanics  to  explain  to  you  the  construction  of  the 
machine  in  all  its  details,  but  of  the  result  I  can  speak,  and  that  with 
confidence. 

Drawn  by  two  horses,  a  man  seated  on  the  near  side  horse  as  driv- 
er, this  wonderful  implement  was  drawn  with  perfect  ease,  at  more 
than  the  rate  of  three  miles  an  hour,  round  and  round  a  field,  partly  in 
wheat  and  partly  in  barley,  cutting  a  breadth  of  corn  in  its  progress 
with  a  regularity  and  evenness  that  was  surprising.  No  straggling 
stalks  of  corn  were  left — none  of  the  slovenly  irregular  work  too  often 
seen  where  manual  labor  is  eni[jlo)'ed,  was  to   be   discovered;  on  the 


6^1  ENGLISH    PUBLICATIONS. 

contrary,  the  field  after  shearing,  looked  nearly  as  smooth  and  even 
as  a  kitchen  floor  or  turnpike  road.  The  farmer  has  now  no  longer  oc- 
casion to  be  behind  the  reapers,  dinning  in  their  years,  "shear  low,'  — 
"  now  do  shear  low;  '  for  this  machine,  with  a  very  simple  adjustment, 
will  cut  the  corn  as  low  as  he  can  possibly  require.  A  seat  on  the 
machine  is  provided  for  a  man,  who  with  a  large  rake,  and  with  mo- 
tion resembling  the  pushing  of  a  punt,  removes  the  corn  from  the 
machine  as  it  is  cut,  and  leaves  it  for  the  binders  to  put  together  in 
sheafs. 

The  assistance  of  two  men  and  two  horses  are  thus  all  that  is  re- 
quired to  draw  and  to  guide  this  wonderful  sickle — and  so  manned,  it 
will  cut  with  the  ease  and  regularity  I  have  described,  from  perhaps 
10  to  12  acres  in  the  working  day.  Nor  as  far  as  I  could  see,  or  learn 
from  the  observation  of  others,  does  there  appear  to  be  any  drawback 
against  its  general  adoption.  Its  price  (;^2i)  is  not  exorbitant — its 
construction  is  not  so  complex  as  to  cause  a  fear  of  frequent  repairs 
being  required;  men  of  the  common  run  of  agricultural  laborers  are 
quite  competent  to  go  with  it,  and  the  work  of  drawing  it  is  not  dis- 
tressing to  the  horses.  Neither  does  the  nature  of  the  ground  appear 
to  be  much  an  object,  for  it  travelled  as  well  over  ridge  and  furrow 
as  it  did  upon  a  level. 

Nothing  could  be  more  unanimous,  than  the  approval  of  which  the 
machine  met  with  from  all  who  saw  its  work,  and  I  was  informed  that 
nine  machines  were  ordered  on  the  ground.  Among  the  purchasers 
was  the  Duke  of  Cleveland,  who  with  Lord  Harry  Vane,  was  present, 
and  examined  its  working  and  construction  minutely.  The  curiosity 
excited  by  the  machine  was  great,  and  an  immense  number  of  people 
visited  the  ground  during  the  two  days. — Noblemen  and  gentlemen, 
farmers  and  farm  laborers,  tradesmen  and  mechanics,  men  and  wo- 
men, flocked  to  seen  the  implement,  which  from  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic  has  come  to  effect  so  important  a  revolution  in  the  labor  of 
the  harvest  field,  and  all  were  agreed  that  Brother  Jonathan,  though 
still  a  young  man,  had  some  clever  notions  in  his  head,  and  that  John 
Bull,  in  the  case  of  the  reaping  machine,  would  not  be  above  taking 
advantage  of  his  intelligence.  I  am,  &c. 

A.  B. 


\_From  the  London  Daily  Neivs.'\ 
Hussey's  Reaping  Machine  —  Trial  before  Prince  Albert. 

The  celebrated  battle  of  the  Ganges  hardly  excited  more  interest 
in  the  railway  world  than  the  battle  of  the  Reaping  machines  has 
lately  created  in  the  agricultural  world,  nor  is  the  result  perhaps 
very  much  less  important  in  the  latter  case  than  in  the  former. 

Of  the  recent  inventions  for  diminishing  the  cost  of  production, 
the  most  remarkable  are  undoubtedly  the  Reaping  machines  of  Messrs. 
Hussey  and  M'Cormick.  Perhaps  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  call 
them  importations  than  inventions,  since  both  have  been  in  use  for 
a   considerable  time   in  America;   and  amongst  the  benefits   arising 


KNGLl.slI    I'VIILICATIONS. 


fir. 


from  the  Exhibition,  it  is  certainly  not  the  least  that  it  has  introduced 
to  the  a^^riculturist  of  Great  Britain  implements  of  the  hi^diest  practical 
utility,  which  mi,L,dU  otlierwise  have  remained  forever  exclusively  in  the 
hands  of  their  brethren  across  the  Atlantic.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  a  trial  of  the  two  rival  machines  took  place  last  summer,  at  Mr. 
Mechi's  model  farm  in  Essex,  having  been  directed  by  the  royal 
commissioners,  with  the  view  of  determining  the  comparative  merits 
of  the  two  instruments,  whose  patentees  were  competitors  for  the 
forthcoming  metlal  prizes.  At  that  time  Mr.  Ilussey,  the  American 
inventor  ofthe  machine  called  after  his  name,  had  not  arrived  in  the 
country.  The  weather  too,  was  very  unpropitious  for  the  trial,  notwith- 
standing which  a  very  large  number  of  gentlemen  were  present. 
The  machines  were  tried  upon  a  field  of  wheat,  and  the  result  was 
such  as  to  convince  all  present,  of  the  superiority,  in  every  point 
of  view,  of  M'Cormick's  machine  —  a  conviction  which  was  subse- 
quently confirmed,  by  the  fact  of  the  Exhibition  medal  being  awarded 
exclusively  to  the  patentee  of  that  machine.  The  tables  however 
were  soon  to  be  turned.  Mr.  Hussey  arrived  in  England;  a  challenge 
having  been  given  by  the  agents  of  Mr.  M'Cormick,  it  was  accepted 
by  Mr.  Hussey,  and  his  English  agent.  Mr.  Dray;  and,  after  a  fair 
contest  before  the  Cleveland  Society,  at  Middelsbro',  near  Stockton- 
on-Tees,  on  the  25th  and  27th  of  Sept.,  a  jury  of  twelve  agriculturists 
pronounced  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the  unmedalled  machine.  They 
decided  that  of  the  two  machines,  Hussey's  had  the  preponderance 
of  advantages  —  that  it  cut  corn  in  the  best  manner,  caused  the  least 
waste,  did  the  most  work  in  a  given  time,  left  the  cut  corn  in  the 
best  order  for  gathering  and  binding,  was  the  best  adapted  for  ridge 
and  furrow\  was  the  least  liable  to  get  out  of  repair,  and  was  the  least 
price  at  first  cost.  On  the  two  other  points  submitted  to  them, 
namely,  which  machine  required  the  least  amount  of  horse  labor, 
and  which  the  least  amount  of  manual  labor,  the  jury  declined  to  express 
a  decided  opinion,  in  consequence  of  the  state  of  the  weather." 

There  have  been  many  other  trials  of  Hussey's  machine  in  different 
parts  of  the  country,  and  the  result  has  been  so  far  uniformly  satis- 
factory.— Amongst  these  we  have  now  to  mention  a  very  interesting 
one  which  took  place  by  appointment  last  Saturday,  at  Windsor, 
in  the  presence  of  his  Royal  Highness,  Prince  Albert,  originating 
in  a  correspondence  between  General  W'emyss,  on  behalf  of  the  Prince, 
and  Messrs.  Dray  &  Co.  of  Swan-lane,  tiie  agents  for  Mr.  Hussey. 
The  spot  selected  for  the  trial  was  behind  the  statue  of  George  HI., 
at  the  end  of  the  Long  Walk,  fern  —  of  which  there  is  an  abundance 
in  that  locality  —  being  the  article  on  which  the  machine  had  to  operate. 
The  Prince  having  from  an  early  hour  in  the  morning  been  engaged 
in  shooting  in  the  vicinity  of  the  statue,  at  half-past  twelve  resigned 
his  gun.  and  proceeded  on  horseback,  in  company  with  General  Wemyss 
and  Col.  Seymour,  to  the  spot  appointed  for  the  trial  of  the  machine. 
Dismounting  from  his  horse,  his  royal  highness  saluted  briefly  and 
gracefully  the  assembled  company,  and  especially  Mr.  Hussey  and 
Mr.   Dray.     He  then   asked   a   few   general   questions   respecting  the 


fi6  ENGLISH    ITHLICATIONS 

history  of  the  machine,  and  observed,  that  as  the  ground  selected 
was  very  uneven  (it  was  in  fact  remarkably  so),  the  trial  would 
be  a  good  one.  After  a  brief  delay,  the  gear  being  declared  in  order, 
on  went  the  machine,  drawn  by  two  strong  horses,  and  heedless  of  ruts 
and  hillocks  in  its  course,  which  was  very  rapid,  bringing  down  every 
thing  it  encountered  cleanly  and  completely,  including  two  or  three 
slices  of  turf  at  least  a  foot  long,  and  more  than  an  inch  thick. 

The  performances  of  the  machine  were  not  confined  to  one  single 
course.  A  considerable  amount  of  work  was  performed  in  the  most 
satisfactory  manner,  Mr.  Husscy  himself  sitting  on  the  box  at  the  side, 
and  throwing  aside  what  was  cut  down  in  the  manner  best  adapted 
for  gathering  and  binding.  Indeed  the  work  was  not  confined  to  the 
fern;  a  rabbit  who  was  not  accustomed  to  this  species  of  interference 
was  started  and  cruelly  lacerated  before  he  had  time  to  escape. 

At  the  close  of  the  trial,  his  royal  highness  gave  a  practical 
proof  of  his  favorable  opinion  by  ordering  two  of  the  machines  for 
himself,  one  for  Windsor  and  the  other  for  Osborne.  He  then,  after 
expressing  his  gratification,  rode  back  to  the  game-keepers  and  resumed 
his  gun.  After  he  had  left,  the  machine  operated  well  upon  some 
rushes. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  state  here  that  Mr.  Dray's  explanation 
of  the  failure  of  the  Hussey  machine  at  Tiptree  Hall  (Mr.  Mechi's 
farm),  is  that  it  was  entirely  owing  to  its  not  being  properly  managed. 
On  that  occasion,  he  says,  the  person  in  charge  of  it  was  simply  a  porter 
at  the  Exhibition,  who,  not  understanding  the  matter,  neglected  to  clear 
away  the  wheat  as  it  was  cut  down,  in  consequence  of  which  the  action 
of  the  machine  was  unavoidably  and  fatally  impeded.  We  witnessed 
the  result  at  Mr  Mechi's,  and  certainly  there  was  no  such  fault  on 
Saturday.  The  progress  of  the  machine  was  notwithstanding  the 
unevenness  of  the  ground,  rapid  and  satisfactory;  and  it  was  stated 
as  a  fact  that  on  a  level  ground  the  horses  used  in  drawing  may  trot, 
not  only  without  weakening  or  impeding  the  action  of  the  knives, 
but  even  with  advantages,  as  by  that  means  the  cutting  requires 
increased  precision  and  force. 

The  following  is  Prince  Albert's  certificate: 

Windsor  Castle,  Nov.  13,  1851. 

Sir: — In  answer  to  your  letter  addressed  to  Gen.  Wemyss,  I  have 
received  the  commands  of  his  Royal  Highness  Prince  Albert,  to  say, 
that  so  far  as  he  could  judge  of  Mr.  Hussey's  Reaping  Machine, 
from  its  performance  in  the  high  fern  at  Windsor  Park,  his  Royal 
Highness  is  disposed  to  form  a  very  favorable  opinion  of  it,  and  has 
ordered  one*  in  consequence  for  the  use  of  his  own  farm.  His  Royal 
Highness  can  however  give  no  opinion  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  this 
machine  in  comparison  with  those  of  others  which  he  has  not  seen 
at  work  I  have  the  honor  to  be  sir,  your  ob"t  serv't, 

grf:y. 


*The  Prince  ordered  two  Machines,  one  for  Windsor  and  one  for  Isle  of  Wight. 


en(;lish  publications.  67 


From  Maidstone  &  Sojith  Eastern  Gazette,  Oct.  21,  '51. 

WEST   KENT   AGRICULTURAL  SOCIKTVS    PLOUGHING 

MATCH. 

HUSSEV'S   AMKRICAN    REAPER. 

A  di.stinc^uishing  feature  at  this  society's  meeting  on  Thursday, 
the  i6th  inst.,  was  an  exhibition  of  the  capabilities  of  the  above 
machine.  The  sesson  of  the  year  of  course  prevented  a  display 
of  its  powers  on  anything  in  the  shape  of  grain,  indeed  great  difficulty 
was  found  in  procuring  even  a  green  crop  on  which  to  operate. 
Undaunted  by  this  fact,  the  inventor  was  determined  to  show  to  the 
anxious  hundreds  assembled  the  extent  of  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  the  use  of  his  reaper.  At  two  o'clock  the  machine  was  set 
to  work  upon  a  field  of  clover,  short  and  light  (as  may  be  supposed), 
where  its  performance  was  effectual  as  it  possibly  could  be,  exciting 
a  considerable  amount  of  surprise  as  well  as  gratification.  It  was 
then  taken  to  a  piece  of  marsh  land,  where  clumps  of  stout  rushes 
in  many  places  were  growing  in  thick  masses,  presenting  the  appear- 
ance of  stunted  grain.  The  machine  passed  over  this  marsh,  cutting 
the  rushes  with  the  same  facility  as  if  it  had  been  corn,  leaving  the 
stubble  about  4  inches  long  and  very  regular,  giving  also  a  good 
representation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  sheaves  of  wheat,  &c.  are 
usually  delivered.  Both  these  operations,  but  especially  the  latter, 
were  considered  severe  contests  of  the  capabilities  of  the  machine. 
Taking  all  the  circumstances  into  consideration,  the  performance  was 
far  beyond  all  reasonable  expectations.  It  was  a  question  whether 
the  excellent  work  of  the  58  competing  ploughs,  or  the  extraordinary 
novelty  of  Hussey's  machine  in  operation,  added  most  to  the  gratification 
of  the  large  assemblage  of  the  leading  agriculturists  of  Kent. 

Fro7n  the  Kentish  Gazette,  Nov.  11,  185 1. 

In  addition  to  the  interest  naturally  felt  by  all  who  live  on  and 
by  the  soil  in  its  proper  cultivation,  there  was  an  unusual  degree 
of  attraction  in  the  fact  that  a  reaping  machine  by  Mr.  Hussey, 
(the  celebrated  American  Machinist)  would  be  tested  upon  7  acres 
of  mustard  adjoining  the  ploughing  field.  The  reaping  was  com- 
menced about  twelve  o'clock,  and  continued  for  a  considerable  period. 
The  crop  of  mustard  was  wet,  and  by  no  means  calculated  to  favor 
the  experiment.  It  was  however,  after  the  machine  was  properly 
arranged,  cut  down  with  great  regularity;  and  at  a  speed  equal  to  four 
miles  an  hour  it  traversed  the  circuit  of  the  field,  hewing  its  way 
through  the  mustard,  quickly  followed  by  a  crowd  of  eager  observers, 
whose  wondering  gaze  exhibited  at  once  their  astonishment  and 
admiration  of  its  working.  Occasionally  the  level  of  the  cutters 
were  altered,  so  as  to  leave  a  greater  or  less  length  of  stubble,  which 
evinced   the   accurate    adjustment   to   which   the   machine   could    be 


58  ENGLISH    I'UKLICATIONS. 

brought.  Some  portion  of  it  was  taken  to  pieces,  and  the  whole 
of  the  arrangements  shown,  which  the  farmers  present  displayed 
an  eager  anxiety  to  investigate,  and  many  were  the  questions  pro- 
posed? and  satisfactory  answered  by  the  talented  inventor. 

We  should  mention  that  the  undulation  of  the  land  does  not  impede 
its  operations  in  the  least  —  as  it  was  well  observed  by  a  gentleman 
present,  that  where  a  cart  could  travel  there  this  machine  could  also 
go,  and' complete  its  design.  No  previous  acquaintance  with  its  prin- 
ciple is  necessary  to  be  able  to  guide  its  operation,  as  was  shown  by 
Mr.  Neame,  Jr.  who  mounted  the  platform  and  discharged  the  functions 
appertaining  to  the  party  who  removes  the  corn  from  the  machine  after 
it  is  cut,  with  the  greatest  ease  and  precision.  Indeed  the  most 
unqualified  approval  was  given  by  the  gentlemen  present,  to  the 
applicability  of  the  reaping  machine  to  the  purposes  for  which 
it  is  designed.  We  have  thus  entered  into  minute  particulars,  because 
this  is  the  first  opportunity  we  have  had  of  witnessing  the  results 
of  such  an  experiment,  attended  as  it  was  with  every  degree  of  satis- 
faction. Lord  Sondes  gave  an  order  for  one  of  the  machines,  and 
we  understand  that  three  or  four  orders  were  given  in  the  course 
of  the  day. 

At  the  dinner  which  followed,  the  chairman  gave  "  Sir  John  Tylden 

and  the  visitors." 

Sir  John  Tylden,  as  a  member  as  well  as  a  visitor,  replied  to  the 
toast,  and  in  a  jocular  strain  animadverted  on  the  suffering  of  the 
farmers  of  Faversham,  who  were  determined,  like  a  celebrated  regi- 
ment in  the  service,  to  "  die  hard."  He  alluded  to  the  reaping  machine 
of  Mr.  Hussey,  which  he  characterized  in  contradistinction  to  that 
of  Mr.  M'Cormick's  and  all  others,  as  the  universal  reaping  machine, 
of  which  he  spoke  in  highly  approving  terms,  and  passed  a  warm 
eulogium  on  its  talented  inventor,  and  the  country  he  represented, 
which  in  the  space  of  8o  years  had  risen  from  a  wilderness  to  her  now 
exalted  position,  and  proud  of  her  Anglo-Saxon  blood. 


A   REVIEW 


Pamphlet  of  W.  N.  P.  Fitzgerald, 

'Counsel  tor  Parties  in  the  State  of  New  York," 

IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  EXTENSION  OF  THE  PATENT 


OF 


OBKD    HUSSKV: 

AND    ALSO    OF   THE    DEFENCE,  OR    EVIDENCE    IN  FAVOUR  OF 

SAID  EXTENSION. 


NARRATIVE  OR  BRIEF  HISTORY 


REAPING  MACHINES, 

AND  AN  EXAMINATION  OF  THE   CLAIMS   FOR    PRIORITY    OF 

INVENTION: 

AXD     AN     APRENDIX. 


BALTLMORE  : 

FROM  THE  PRESS  OF  MILLS  &  COX, 

i::  BALTIMORE  STREET, 
1855. 

ReprinleJ  by  the  W.  B.  CON  KEY  COMPANY. 
1897. 


REVIEW. 


In  rcviewirii^^  these  pamphlets— the  one  intended  to  defeat,  and 
the  other  in  vindication  of  the  riijhts  of  Obed  Hussey — and  which  are 
in  fact  the  rights  of  every  honest  inventor  in  the  country, — as  well 
from  the  aspersions  cast  on  his  private  character,  and  abounding  in 
this  paper,  as  from  the  labored  efforts  by  interested  parties  to  deprive 
an  honest  and  hard  workin*^  man  of  the  just  reward  due  to  his  Li^enius 
and  talents,  it  is  proper  to  say  that  we  have  no  private  or  pecuniary 
interest  in  any  patent  claim.  Nor  are  we  fee'd  "counsel"  or  hired 
agerits — literally  Lobby  Lni^'ycrs,  to  get  claims  through  Congress,  rii^ht 
or  wrong.  But  we  are  farmers, who  can  appreciate,  and  know  practi- 
cally the  great  value  of  this  invention  to  the  Agricultural  interests  of 
the  country;  and  who  desire  to  see  the  inventive  talent  of  our  country- 
men fostered  and  encouraged  by  the  General  Government,  and  ade- 
quately rewarded  for  its  toil  and   privations. 

As  Farmers,  we  advocate  the  extension  of  this  patent,  and  as 
Farmers  we  hav'e  a  right  to  be  heard,  being  the  class  most  directly 
interested,  next  to  the  inventor  himself;  and  fully  believing  that  the 
country — na\-,  the  w  hole  Agricultural  world — is  more  indebted  to  Obed 
Hussey  than  to  any  or  all  other  inventors,  in  being  the  first  to  render 
this  implement  of  real  practical  value  to  the  Farmer,  and  that  the  evi- 
dence fully  sustains  this  belief — that  his  invention  has  conferred  the 
most  signal  and  lasting  benefits  on  others,  with  a  reward  in  no  degree 
adequate,  to  himself;  that  it  is  justly  due  to  one  who  has  proved  him- 
self a  public  benefactor  both  at  home  and  aboad;  and  that  in  granting 
the  extension,  it  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  an  enlightened  polic\' 
of  the  Government,  and  will  not  injure  the  interests  of  the  farmer, 
or  others,  who  ha\e  the  slightest  right  to  object  or  complain. 

It  is  brought  as  a  grave  accusation  against  Obed  Hussey,  that  he 
was  "  ignorant,"  not  "  learned  in  the  law,"  and  as  "  familiar  with  the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office,"  as  this  "  counsel  "  professes 
to  be. 

Is  it  to  be  sui)poscd  that  he  coultl  be?  The  man  whose  whole  life 
has  been  one  of  toil  and  hartlshi});  though  seeking  to  be  useful  to 
others,  and  to  make  an  honest  living  by  industry  and  perseverance;  as 
well — and  for  years — on  the  pathless  Ocean,  in  {nirsuit  of  the  great 
*'  Leviathan  of  the  deep,"  to  furnish  the  oil  for  the  lawyers'  midnight 
lamp — "  passing  nine  consecutive  months  of  the  }'ear  on  the  southern 
ocean,  and  under  the  shadow  of  the  main  topsail,  without  even  a  sight 
of  terra  firnia' — as  on  the  land,  to  aid  in  lightening  the  labors  of  his 
fellow  man,  who  provides  the  staff  of  life. 

71 


A     KKVIEW. 


The  forc-castle,  not  the  Forum — the  work-shop,  and  not  the  Uni- 
\ersity.  ha\e  been,  we  presume,  the  schools  in  which  he  was  taught; 
and  doubtless  his  hands  are  more  familiar  with  the  harpoo)i,  the  ham- 
mer and  the  chisel,  than  with  the  pen.  For  more  than  twenty  years— 
indeed  the  prime  of  his  life — he  has  devoted  all  the  energies  of  his 
mind  to  perfect  and  bring  into  use,  this  great  labor-saving  implement, 
the  Reaping  and  Mowing  Machine.  And  if  he  has  by  so  doing  bene- 
fitted others,  it  is  certainly  no  more  than  right  and  fair  that  he  should 
receive  a  reward  in  return ;^such  as  the  laws  of  the  land  recognize  as 
"  adequate  reward." 

We  honestly  believe  that  he  is  justly  entitled  to  what  he  asks  for; 
and  are  willing  "  without  money  and  without  price,"  to  aid  the  deserv- 
ing as  far  as  our  efforts  and  influence  can  avail  in  so  laudable  a  cause. 

In  asking  Congress  for  an  extension  of  his  Patent  it  is  no  more 
than  hundreds  have  asked  before  him;  and  have  had  granted  to  them, 
lor  inventions  of  small  comparative  value  in  many  cases,  to  the  public. 
If  his  is  of  great  value  to  i\\Q public,  it  certainly  ought  to  be  considered 
of  corresponding  value  to  the  iiivcut07\ 

We  will  endeavor  to  show  that  his  invention  has  proved  itself  of 
I'ery  great  value  to  the  Agricultural  interests  of  the  country. 

As  to  the  benefit  of  Reaping  Machines  to  the  farmer,  and  the  just 
or  adequate  retvard  to  the  inventor,  we  will  give  the  opinion  of  one  who 
was  not  only  disinterested,  but  fully  understood  both  branches  of  the 
subject;*  he  says:  "In  Agriculture,  it  is  in  my  view,  as  important,  as  a 
labor-saving  device,  as  the  spinning  jenny  and  power  loom  in  manu- 
factures. It  is  one  of  those  great  and  valuable  inventions  which  com- 
mence a  new  era  in  the  progress  of  improvement,  and  whose  beneficial 
influence  is  felt  in  all  coming  time;  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
the  man  whose  genius  produces  a  machine  of  so  much  value,  should 
make  a  large  fortune  out  of  it.  It  is  not  possible  for  him  to  obtain 
during  the  whole  existence  of  the  term  of  his  patent,  a  tenth  part  of 
the  value  of  the  labor  saved  to  the  community  by  it  in  a  single 
year." 

There  are  doubtless  applications  for  extensions,  and  perhaps 
granted  too,  in  which  the  ajiplicant  has  been  amply  rewarded;  others 
again,  and  it  is  believed  by  far  the  greater  number,  have  been  made 
poorer  instead  of  richer,  by  devoting  their  time  and  energies  to  intro- 
duce useful  implements  and  machinery. 

The  shrewd  and  designing,  not  the  poor  inventor,  usually  reap  the 
reward  due  to  genius.  Such  are  e\'er  ready  for  the  sake  of  gain,  and 
with  a  reasonable  prospect  of  impunity,  to  invest  their  capital;  often 
realizing  ceut.  per  cent,  profits  out  of  the  public — taking  the  bread  out 
of  the  mouth  of  the  poor,  but  honest  inventor,  and  frequently  with 
means  too  limited  to  protect  his  known  and  admitted  rights.;  or  if  these 
rights  are  acknowledged,  the  Capitalist  usually  retains  the  "lion's 
share,"  and  the  poor  inventor  must  be  content  nith  a  mere  pittance,  or 
get  nothing. 

We  do  not  propose  to  follow  the  example  of  this  "counsel  "  by  ar- 

*Hon.  Edward  Burke. 


A    Kr:vii:\v.  73 

^uments  on  aljstract  principles  and  siii)po.scd  cases,  that  have  no  sort 
ot  analoj^y  or  Lviarintj  whatever  on  the  subject;  for  he  bases  his  arj^u- 
nicnts  on  false  premises — assuminf^  as  facts  what  never  existed,  except 
in  his  own  imaf^ination.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  review  in  detail  the /^/w 
argiDHOits  of  the  learned  "  counsel  ";  though  we  expect  to  prove  by  the 
Lnv  that  he  either  does  not  himself  understand  it,  or  intentionally  mis- 
interprets its  plain  and  obvious  meaning.  It  is  believed  there  are  yet 
some  good  lawyers  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  who  are  quite  as 
likely  to  interi)ret  them  aright  as  this  gentleman;  and  who,  when  they 
desire  La%i\  know  where  to  find  it,  and  how  properly  to  expound  its 
provisions. 

Congress  ma>'  rccjuire  facts  to  enable  it  to  act  undcrstandingly; 
these  have  already  been  furnished,  and  are  now  on  file  in  this  case, 
fully  sufficient  to  convince  and  satisfy  two  able  Committees  of  the 
Senate — with  a  fair  proportion  of  very  talented  Jurists  on  each — to  in- 
duce unanimous  reports  in  favor  of  the  extension;  and  this  too  after 
a  careful  and  critical  investigation  of  the  facts  and  merits  of  the  claim. 
On  the  passage  of  the  Bill  through  the  Senate,  it  was  stated  by  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Committee,  who  is  also  a  very  talented  lawyer,  and  had 
carefully  investigated  the  case,  that  "the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Patents  and  the  Patent  Office  is  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  bill.  It 
is  a  very  strong  case,  and  one  about  which  ,he  Committee  has  no 
doubt  at  all." 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  retributive  justice,  where  the  attempt  to 
injure  another  in  character  or  interests,  recoils  on  its  authors;  and  this 
is  believed  to  be  one  strictly  of  that  character;  for  it  enables  us  to  ex- 
pose the  object  of  a  combination,  just  as  selfish  and  unjust,  as  it  is 
unwarranted  by  the  facts.  In  seeking  to  maintain  his  own  just  rights, 
Hussey  has  not  assailed  the  character  of  anyone;  nor  has  he,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  so  far  as  we  can  perceive,  attemjited  to  invade  the 
rights  of  others.  ^Te  has  long  resided,  and  is  well  known  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore;  and  not  altogether  unknown  in  some  other  sections  of 
this  State;  possibly  this  "counsel"  and  "  parties  in  the  State  of  New 
York"  may  have  heard  of  him  in  other  portions  of  the  Union,  if  not  in 
foreign  countries.  However  this  may  be,  we  leave  it  for  others,  disin- 
terested f>arties,  to  say,  whether  they  have  ever  known  him  engaged, 
either  by  chicanery  or  open  assault,  to  traduce  private  character,  or 
intentionall}'  or  knowingl\',  interfere  with  the  rights  and  property  of 
others. 

With  these  general  remarks,  we  will  examine  the  pamphlet  in 
question — refute  its  misstatements  and  perversions  of  facts,  by  documen- 
tary evidence;  and  clearly  show,  as  we  think,  that  its  sole  motive  and 
object  is  to  deprive  Obed  Hussey  of  laurels  fairly  won — to  rob  him  of 
the  reward  justly  earned,  b)'  more  than  twenty  years  of  toil  and  per- 
se\erance.  to  perfect  this  great  and  valuable  labor-saving  machine, 
and  transfer  the  profits  to  the  pockets  of  a  few  designing  and  inter- 
ested "  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York."  Who  they  are,  or  how 
many,  their  "  counsel"  carefully  conceals;  nor  are  we  surprised  that  in 
such   a  cause,  the\'  desire  concealment,  and  should  prefer  iiiring  one 


A     KKVIEW. 


who  appears  quite  ready  and  willing  to  invade  the  rights  of  others,  and 
to  assail  private  character,  without  cause  and  without  provocation,  by 
which  to  gain  a  fee.  We  only  notice  this  attack  on  private  character 
at  all,  on  the  general  principle  that  the  oft  repeated  slander  may  as- 
sume the  garb  of  truth  with  some,  if  unnoticed  and  unexposed. 

In  quoting  from  the  pamphlet,  it  is  done,  italics  and  all,  just  as 
printed.     On  page  ist  it  is  stated: 

"  If  the  patent  in  question  had  not  expired,  and  were  before  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  on  application  for  extension,  tlie  questions  would  be  simply  whether  Mr. 
Hussey  had  made  a  valuable  invention,  and  whether  he  had  failed  from  causes 
beyond  his  control  to  obtain  a  reasonable  remuneration  therefor.  If  so,  he  would, 
prima  facie,  be  entitled  to  an  extension,  and  it  would  be  granted  to  him  if  consistent 
with  the  public  interests.  [See  18  Sec.  Stat,  of  1836,  and  1  Sec.  Stat,  of  1848. J— But 
the  patent  having  expired,  and  the  public  having  thereby  acquired  the  absolute  right 
to  the  invention,  and  having  entered  upon  and  extensively  exercised  that  right 
throughout  the  country  for  nearly  seven  years,  and  numerous  individuals  having  in 
good  faith  invested  millions  of  dollars  in  the  manufacture  of  improved  machines 
embodying  some  of  the  general  features  covered  by  this  patent— other  questions  of 
vast  import  to  the  public  arise,  and  should  be  carefully  considered." 

Now  the  merits  of  the  whole  question  of  extension  elaborately 
argued  in  some  I2  pages,  might  be  comprised  within  the  compass  of  a 
nutshell;  the  authority  and  grounds  for  granting  it  are  found  in  the 
Act  of  July  4th,  1836,  viz:  has  the  applicant  a  valid  claim  as  inventor, 
— is  the  invention  of  value  to  the  community, — and  has  he  been  ade- 
quately rewarded  thereby.  But  in  order  to  avoid  all  cause  for  a 
charge  of  unfairness,  and  at  the  risk  of  too  much  extending  our  review, 
we  will  quote  at  greater  length  than  is  deemed  necessary.  It  will  also 
show  more  clearly  the  spirit  and  motives  of  these  "parties  in  the  State 
of  New  York"  and  their  "  cour^sel." 

In  page  3  it  is  stated,  that  "  he  had  allowed  his  patent  to  expire,— had  given  no 
public  notice  of  an  intention  to  extend  it,  and  who  has  left  the  public  in  the  posses- 
sion and  ownership  of  the  invention,  without  suggesting  or  hinting  that  he  intended 
to  make  such  an  attempt  for  nearly  six  years!  and  until  millions  of  dollars  are  in- 
vested in  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  machines,  improved  by  the  valuable  inven- 
tions of  others,  but  which  embrace  some  of  the  elements  covered  by  the  patent 
songht  to  be  extended;  [ll]  the  whole  manufacture  and  sale  of  which  would  be  made 
subject  to  such  tariff  as  the  patentee  under  the  extension  might  choose  to  impose,  or 
be  arrested  entirely  by  an  injunction,  or  subjected  to  ruinous  suits  and  damages  at  Law. 
And  be  it  remembered,  these  vast  establishments  sprang  up,  and  these  vast  sums  of 
money  were  invested,  when  the  invention  of  Hussey  had  long  been  fully  and  com- 
pletely vested  in  the  public,  and  all  was  done  \n  good  faith,  without  the  slightest  hint 
or  suspicion  that  eveii  an  attempt  to  renew  \/as  contemplated,  or  a  belief  in  the 
possibility  of  a  renewal,  or  any  reason  to  believe  it  any  more  than  all  steam  navi- 
gation should  be  laid  under  contribution,  at  the  will  of  the  heirs,  by  the  renewal  of 
the  patent  of  Robert  Fulton!" 

The  learned  "counsel  "  may  well  make  a  note  of  exclamation  here; 
a  dozen  would  not  be  misplaced.  We  would  like  to  ask  him  a  single 
question, — does  he  expect  the  public  to  believe  all  this?  and  does  he 
believe  it  himself?     But  hear  him  further,  page  four. 

"It  should  be  constantly  borne  in  mind,  that  in  1847,  prior  to  the  expiration  of 
Hussev's  patent,  he  might  have  applied  under  the  then  existing  law,  to  the  Hoard  of 
Extensions,  and  obtained  an  extension,  if  he  had  chosen  to  do  so,  and  could  have 
shown  himself  to  be  entitled  thereto.  But  he  made  no  such  application,  as  the 
records  of  the  Patent  Office  show." 


A   KEVii:\v.  75 

A^^'iin,  same  page: 

"  Now  Mr.  Husscy  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  this,  [i.  e.  the  "sixty  days 
rule,"  or  notice]  and  he  does  not  pretend  to  be  ignorant  that  notice  to  adverse 
parties  was  re<|uired  by  statute,  to  give  them  opportunity  to  oppose,  tic.  These 
things  I  say  Hussey  knew,  and  does  not  dure  to  pretend  ignorance  of. 

"  Under  this  state  of  the  law  how  docs  Hnssey  proceed?  Why,  he  makes  no 
application  at  the  proper  time  and  place,  but  calls  on  the  coiiimissioncr  personally  for 
the  first  time,  ti:n  days  before  the  expiration  of  his  patent,  and  talks  with  him  about 
an  extension,  and  is  of  course  told  that  he  has  by  his  own  delay  rendered  it  impos- 
sible to  give  reasonable  notice  to  adverse  parties,  and  that  his  application  will  be 
rejected  if  made,  and  that  he  had  better  save  the  fee.  He  is  also  mfcjrmed  that  the 
.f/rc/AwV //V;/^' for  notice  which  the  Board  of  Extensions  consider  reasonable,  is  sixty 
days,  and  that  they  have  long  since  adopted  a  rule  to  that  affect.  This  rule,  let  it  be 
recollected,  had  been  previously  for  years,  and  still  was,  circulated  freely  in  the  same 
pamphlet  with  the  instructions  to  those  who  have  business  with  the  Patent  Office, 
among  all  who  desired  the  pamphlet,  and  sent  to  almost  every  patentee  in  the 
ct)uiitry,  and  none  having  occasion  to  know  could  be  ignorant  without  the  gros- 
sest negligence  of  the  rule  adopted  by  the  board.  A  note  to  the  Commissioner 
would  have  brought  him,  without  a  pe)i)iy  of  expense,  and  ivitliin  twenty-four  hours 
from  mailing  his  note  a  perf eel  printed  copy  of  all  the  rules  on  the  subject.  A  plea  of 
ignorance  is  always  suspicious,  and  under  such  circumstances  becomes  peculiarly  so. 
\\xi%'\\.  real  ii:;norance,ox -x  ruse  \.o  escape  thorough  investigation  without  subjecting 
himself  to  the  presumptions  which  always  arise  from  dodging  investigation?  Igno- 
rance is  sometimes  7>ery  convenient,  so  convenient  that  \.\\Qlaw  never  allows  a  party  to 
avail  himself  of  its  benefits,  when  he  might  have  known.  By  this  ignorance  or  trick 
he  has  effectually  escaped  investigation.  Shall  he  also  escape  adverse  presump- 
tions, and  thus  derive  a  double  benefit  from  his  inexcusable  ignorance,  whether  real 
or  feigned?  Shall  an  innocent  public  suffer  the  consequences  of  Hussey's  inexcusable 
neglect,  while  he  reaps  only  its  advantages?" 

Now  wc  would  ask  the  intelligent  reader,  what  could  ha\e  been 
the  inducement  for  these  "clients  " — "the  principal  of  them  who  did 
not  enter  upon  the  business  until  years  after  the  expiration  of 
Hussey's  patent."  [of  course  meaning  Howard  &  Co.,  the  assignees  of 
Ketchum's  patent]  to  "invest  millions  of  dollars"  in  the  manufacture 
of  machines,  that  they  knew  perfectly  well  were  "  embodxing  some  of 
the  general  features  covered  by  this  patent," — in  another  place — 
"which  embrace  some  of  the  elements  covered  by  the  patent  sought 
to  be  extended" — and  in  a  third  place.  "  embra'ce  a  si ng/e  feature  ol 
his  patent?" 

How  were  these  "  millions  of  dollars"  acquired,  that  were  not  in- 
vested until  "  the  inventions  of  Husscy  had  long  been  fully  anci  com- 
pletely vested  in  the  public," — "not  until  they  left  the  fullest 
opportunity  to  apply  to  the  Patent  Office  before  the  expiration  of  the 
patent,  or  to  Congress  after'' — nor  "  until  years  after  the  expiration  of 
Hussey's  patent?"  &c.,  &c.  They  either  made  these  "millions"  at 
other  kinds  of  business, —  if  indeed  they  were  ever  made — whilst 
Hussey  was  struggliiig  in  poverty  and  adversity,  and  straining  every 
nerve  to  perfect  and  introduce  the  machine  into  use  ;  and  as  it  would 
ajDpear,  just  in  li/ne  for  these  capitalists  to  realize  other  "  tnillio.ns  "from 
his  labors!  or ,  if  made  since,  by  the  sale  of  machines,  they  are  rich 
enough  already,  manufactured  out  of  the  brains  of  other  tnen,  and  have  no 
right  whatever  to  interfere.  And  you  to  talk  about  Hussey  having 
"become  the  cat's-paw  of  a  more  designing  and  grasping  man!!  " 

It  is  perfectly  well   known  to  e\ery  machinist  in  the  country  who 


A     REVIEW. 


has  ever  seen  a  Reaper,  that  no  great  outlay  in  machinery  is  required 
to  build  them  on  a  moderate  scale,  and  that  the  same  machinery  is 
equally  adapted  to  the  construction  of  threshing  machines,  and  a 
hundred  other  kinds  of  work.  It  is  only  in  such  shops— "  these  vast 
establishments,"  as  these  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York  have,  who 
boast  of  selling  their  thousands  upon  thousands  of  Reapers  annually, 
that  "millions"  can  be  used;  and  with  these,  the  main  expense  is  for 
materials  and  workmanship,  not  dead  capital  invested  in  machinery. 
It  is  however  just  as  easy  to  zvritc  viillions,  as  thousands.  We  have 
known  good  and  efficient  reapers  built— after  the  right  was  honestly 
obtained,  to  build  the  right  kind,— by  persons  who  were  not  mechanics 
by  profession.  A  good  country  blacksmith,  aided  by  a  worker  in 
wood,  and  a  suitable  lathe  to  turn  the  journals,  are  altogether  com- 
petent with  a  little  experience  to  do  the  work;  and  such  has  been  the 
start, of  almost  every  ongmal  inventor.  True,  tl.e  Capitalist  by  a  divi- 
sion of  labor,  and  more  extensive  machinerv  can  do  a  largerbusiness, 
and  make  more  Jiioncy. 

Much  parade  is  made,  and  much  stress  laid,  on  doing  injustice  to 
the  "public"— "the  innocent  public,"  in  granting  this  particular 
extension.  Do  the  farmers,  who  alone  use  these  machines,  constitute 
the  "innocent  public"  which  so  claims  their  sympathy?  By  no 
means;  but  it  consists  of — and  by  their  own  showing,  a  few  million- 
aires, the  assignees  of  a  poor  patentee,  who  seek  to  deprive  others  of 
their  just  rights,  in  order  to  increase  still  more,  their  own  sordid  gains. 
The  Farmer  is  not  t\\Q  party  sought  to  be  benefitted  in  this  crusade 
agamst  a  "  sailor's  right:"  ///r/r  interest,  and  the  "  public  good,"  are 
but  as  the  paw  of  poor  puss  to  get  at  the  roasted  clicstnnts.  Do  these 
very  disinterested  and  public  spirited  parties  who  are  so  alive  to  the 
"  public  good,"  reduce  the  price  of  their  machines  to  the  farmer?  Do 
they  not  charge  just  as  high  for  them  now,  when  they  boast  of  selling 
thousands  annually,  as  when  the  sales  did  not  reach  hundreds?  We 
know  they  do,  for  we  have  now  before  us  their  hand  bills  for  several 
years  past. 

We  do  not  believe  there  is  a  disinterested  and  liberal  minded 
farmer  or  mechanic  in  the  Union,  who  knowing  the  facts  or  true 
merits  of  the  case,  would  oppose  or  object  to  the  extension.  All  such 
with  whom  we  have  conferred,  both  as  Societies  and  individually,  are 
in  favor  of  it,  as  a  reward  fairly  and  fully  earned  by  years  of  toil,  in 
the  effort  to  benefit  the  agricultural  interests  of  the  country.  This  is 
not  the  place  to  enter  into  details  of  profits,  &c.;  but  as  we  sometimes 
arrive  at  correct  results  by  comparisons,  it  may  be  stated,  that  owing 
to  his  very  limited  means  in  part,  but  more  to  the  great  difficulty  in 
inducing  the  farmers  to  adopt  improvements, — proverbial  as  they 
generally  are  for  caution,  and  adhering  to  old  and  long  established 
usages — Hussey  sold  less  than  three  hundred  machines,  all  told,  [but  not 
paid  for  to  this  day,]  during  the  whole  term  of  the  Patent,  of  fourteen 
years!  It  required  eleven  years  to  sell  less  than  half  of  them:— not  an 
average  of  the  one  hnndredth  part  of  what  these  capitalists,  or  "  the 
principal  of  then"  boast  of  having  sold  in  a  single  year ;  nor  t\\c  four 


A     KliVlEU.  77 

hnfi(/>\(/t/i p</yt  o[  what  one  of  tlicir  agents  stated  they  vvoiihl  make  and 
sell  the  current  year!  !  !  We  would  say  to  these  "  parties,"  as  did  the 
Speaker  of  the  Virginia  Mouse  of  Burgesses  to  a  very  modest  man, 
though  he  afterward  attained  to  some  celebrity,  by  always  acting  on 
the  principle,  that  "honesty  is  the  best  polic)%''  "sit  down  Mr. 
Washington;  your  great  deeds  are  only  equalled  by  your  modesty." 

It  is  comparatively  an  east  thing,  after  the  forest  is  levelled,  the 
track  opened  and  cleared  out,  bridges  erected,  and  the  rails  laid  down, 
for  the  Locomotive  to  fly  as  on  "  the  wings  of  the  wind,"  and  almost 
annihilating  time  and  space. 

And  just  so  with  these  capitalists;  after  long  years  of  privation 
and  persexerance  in  in\cnting  and  perfecting  this  invaluable  machine, 
and  the  still  greater  difficulties  and  delays  are  overcome,  in  getting  it 
introduced  into  use  by  the  inventor,  they,  with  a  large  money  capital, 
have  no  difficulty  in  erecting  "vast  establishments,"  and  selling 
machines  by  thousands.  Like  the  merciless  Kite,  they  watch  their 
chance,  and  pounce  down  upon  the  innocent  prey  in  the  farm  yard. 
But  "ware  the  farmer  boy "  with  his  rusty  old  firc-lock;  for  before 
soaring  away  with  his  prize,  the  def^V'^iator  may  perchance  find  his 
wings  clipped,  and  his  talons  rendered  powerless,  by  an  unexpected 
but  well  aimed  shot. 

It  is  asserted  over  and  over  again  by  this  "  Counsel,"  not  less  than 
three  or  four  times,  that  sixty  days'  notice  was  necessary  by  the  "  rule  " 
of  the  board  of  extensions;  that  Hussey  calls  on  the  Commissioner 
personally  for  the  frst  time  Ten  D.vys  before  the  expiration  of  his 
patent,  and  talks  w'lih  him  about  an  extension;  is  informed  that  the 
" shortest  time''  for  the  notice  is  sixtij  days; — long  since  adopted,  and 
that  it  had  been  previously  and  for  years  printed  and  circulated  freely 
by  the  Patent  Oflice,  &c.  &c.  But  before  returning  this  broadside,  we 
will  get  into  close  quarters,  and  receive  another  from  pages  5  and  6 — 

"  Rut  even  if  he  had  been  ignorant  of  the  sixtv  days'  ntle,  adopted  by  the  hoard, 
he  could  not  have  been  ignorant  that  in  a  country  so  wide  spread  as  this,  a  shorter 
term  of  notice,  to  allow  those  interested  adversely  to  hear  of  the  application,  and 
prepare  their  testimony  for  the  hearing,  ivoiild  not  be  sufficient,  or  reasonable,  or  just 
to  the  public,  but  would  be  mocking  the  public  and  individuals  by  the  fornisoi  law 
without  its  substance,  and  trampling  upon  their  ris^hts  while  they  were  insulted  by  a 
sham  notice.  It  would  be  recalling  the  days  of  that  tyrant  who  published  his  edicts 
by  writing  them  in  small  letters,  and  placing  them  so  high  in  the  air  that  people 
could  not  read  them,  and  still  requiring  compliance,  or  the  consecjuences.  Hussey 
could  not  have  in  tended  the  public  to  have  notice, and  could  have  delaved  the  call  on 
the  Commissioner  till  wilhing  ten  days  of  the  expiration  of  his  patent,  for  /lo  other 
purpose, than  to  dtpriTe  the  public  of  the  means  of  notice,  and  obtain  his  extension 
C07'ertly  on  ex-parte  affidavits,  while  the  public  and  tht)se  interested,  were  mocked 
and  insulted,  hy  lei^al  forms.  I  say  he  could  not  have  intended  io  act  in  good  faitii. 
And  why — but  that  his  pretensions  would  not  bear  the  light.  If  he  had  applied y/Y/i' 
(^Azr.'v  before  the  expiration,  there  might  iiave  been  an  appearance  ol  sincerity:  but 
how  miserable  is  the  plea  that  he  did  not  know  the  precise  number  of  days  limited  by 
the  board,  when  he  did  not  apply  at  all,  and  called  on  the  commissioner  for  the  first 
time  on  the  subject,  but  ten  days  before  the  expiration  of  the  .patent!  The  facts 
dest?-oy  ei'cry  presumption  of  good  faith.  He  did  not  intend  \o  allow  a  fair  investiga- 
tion but  to  stifle  it,  and  get  an  extension  on  an  ex-parte  hearim^,  where  he  could 
prove  what  he  pleased,  without  danger  of  contradiction. 

'But  again:  The  course  pursued  left  no  traces.     Nothing  appears  on  the  record 


78  A     REVIEW. 

of  ^he  proper  office,  to  show  that  the  subject  was  ever  broached  there,  or  to  give 
notice  of  his  intehtions.  Those,  therefore,  who  sought  information  at  the  proper 
point,  could  learn  only  that  no  attempt  had  ever  been  made  to  obtain  an  extension, 
which  put  them  off  the  track. — The  conversation  between  Hussey  and  the  Commis- 
sioner appears  to  have  been  entirely  secret,  and  is  shown  to  have  taken  place  only 
by  a  private  letter  of  Edmund  Burke  to  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee, 
some  four  months  after  the  alleged  interview.  There  was  nothing  to  give  those  who 
were  interested  adversely  the  slightest  hint  that  an  extension  was  contemplated,  how- 
ever diligently  it  might  be  sought. — His  track  being  entirely  covered,  he  proceeds 
with  equal  secrecy  to  Congress  with  his  petition,  and  his  wretched  excuse  about 
ignorance  of  the  sixty  days'  rule — but  without  any  excuse  for  his  delay  till  ten  days 
before  the  expiration  of  his  patent — it  admitted  of  none — and  prayed  an  extension  by 
their  extraordinary  interposition!  " 

Now  oney^^r/ at  least,  appears  to  be  conclusively  established,  and 
that  is,  this  astute  "  counsel  "  considers  himself  perfectly  an  fait  in 
"  law,"  and  the  "  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office."  If  he 
had  understood  them  only  half  as  well  as  he  appears  to  do  the  bandy- 
ing of  reproachful  epithets,  it  would  be  better  for  him,  though  not  for 
his  cause.  As  this  ''  sixty  days  rule  "  appears  to  be  the  strong  hold  of 
the  counsel — his  "  Rock  of  Gibraltar,"  we  will  exarnine  it  with  a  little 
more  attention. 

Knowing,  we  presume,  but  little  about  law,  and  still  less  about  "the 
rules  and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office  " — for  all  his  time,  and  con- 
stant labor  with  his  own  hands,  were  required  in  the  workshop  to  earn 
a  bare  support, — but  being  very  desirous  to  obtain  an  extension  of  his 
Patent  before  it  should  expire,  and  also  having  some  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  Commissioner  Ellsworth,  Hussey's  first  application  was 
made  to  him  in  1845,  ^  short  time  previous  to  his  going  out  of  office; 
certainly  not  less  than  tzvclvc  7nontlis  before  the  expiration.  This  is 
proved  by  the  annexed  letter: 

La  F"ayette,  Ia.,  July  3,  1854. 

Dear  Sir: — Your  letter  of  some  weeks  since,  referring  to  a  con- 
versation I  had  with  you  while  I  was  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
relative  to  the  extension  of  your  patent  for  a  Reaper,  would  have 
been  answered  earlier,  but  for  absence  and  extreme  pressure  of 
business. 

If  my  recollection  will  aid  you,  I  most  cheerfully  state,  that  before 
your  patent  expired,  you  consulted  me  as  to  the  extension  of  the 
same.  I  replied  that  it  was  better  to  postpone  an  application  until 
near  the  time  the  patent  would  run  out,  for  the  Office  must  estimate 
the  profits  of  the  invention  during  the  whole  term;  and  you  accord- 
ingly postponed  it.  I  regret  you  postponed  it  too  long.  The  publi- 
cation of  thirty  days  before  the  patent  expired,  was  a  rule  as  published 
by  myself.  If  you  have  lost  your  opportunity  for  relief  through  (the) 
Patent  Office,  you  must  of  course  go  to  Congress. — I  have  always 
regarded  your  improvement  as  valuable,  and  that  the  country  is 
greatly  indebted  to  your  persevering  efforts,  notwithstanding  the 
obstacles  presented. 

Yours  respectfully, 

HENRY  L.  ELLSWORTH. 
Mr.  Obed  Hussey,  Balto.  Md. 


A     KKVIIiW.  79 

This  at  least  presents  "  an  apptarancc  of  sincerity ;  "  and  at  once  cuts 
down  the  "  5/.V/J'  (/<fys'  rule"  to  a.  "  f/iirty  days'  rule."  But  \.\\e  Reaper 
can  cut  better  than  to  leave  half  the  grain  standing.  It  usually  cuts 
every  head!  Husscy  acted  on  this  official  advice;  and  did  "  postpone 
an  application  until  near  the  time  the  patent  would  run  out  " — literally 
so,  for  he  was  not  advised  of  even  the  "thirty  days'  rule." 

When  he  again  applied,  and  not  "  until  near  the  time  the  patent 
would  run  out,"  Edmund  Rurke  was  Commissioner  of  Patents.  He 
states  in  a  letter  to  Senators  Douglas  and  Shields,  under  date  March 
4th,  1850,  as  follows: 

"  In  relation  to  the  patent  of  Hussey,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  his 
patent  expired  some  time  within  the  latter  part  of  December,  1847. 
During  that  month,  and  within  some  ten  or  twelve  days  before  the 
expiration  of  his  patent,  he  applied  to  me  as  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
for  an  extension.  I  informed  him,  that  inasmuch  as  the  act  of  Con- 
gress prescribed  the  mode  in  which  patents  should  be  extended;  re- 
quired a  reasonable  notice  to  be  gi\en  to  the  public  in  sundry  news- 
papers, published  in  those  parts  of  the  country  most  interested  against 
such  extension;  and  as  the  board  had  decided  that  'reasonable' 
notice  should  be  a  publication  of  the  application  for  extension  three 
weeks  prior  to  the  day  appointed  for  the  hearing,  there  was  not  time 
to  give  the  required  notice  in  his  case;  and  I  advised  Mr.  Hussey  not 
to  make  his  application,  and  thus  lose  the  fee  of  $40  required  in  such 
cases,  as  he  inevitabU'  would,  without  the  least  prospect  of  succeeding 
in  his  application — but  to  petition  Congress  for  an  extension,  which 
body  had  the  power  to  grant  it." 

Well,  the  ''sixty  days'  rule,"  so  relied  on  and  harped  upon,  is  here 
clearly  shorn  of  tzvo  thirds  of  its  fair  proportions. 

It  is  shown  by  the  foregoing  letters,  that  one  commissioner  advised 
a  delay  in  the  application, — and  for  apparently  very  sound  reasons. 
On  the  second  application  to  Edmund  Burke,  on  the  twentieth  day  of 
December,  1847,  clevoi  days  before  the  expiration,  and  when  the 
patent  //r?c/ nearly  run  out,  he  was  informed  that  the  "rule  "  or  notice 
required,  is  "  three  weeks  prior  to  the  day  appointed  for  the  hearing." 

He  was  again  officially  advised  not  to  make  the  application  to  the 
Patent  office,  and  lose  the  fee  of  forty  dollars,  but  to  "  make  the 
application  to  Congress,  which  body  had  the  power  to  grant  it."  It 
thus  ajipears  that  one  Commissioner  had  established  a  "  rule  "  of 
"  thirty  days,"  and  the  other  a  "  rule  "  of  "  21  days." 

The  counsel  asserts  positively,  that  Hussey  did  not  actually  apply 
at  all:  only  called  on  the  Commissioner  and  talks  with  him  ten  days 
before  the  expiration,  and  was  told  of  the  "  sixty  days'  rule."  Now 
the  Commissioner  asserts  just  as  positi\ely  XXxTx.lWw^scy  did  apply  for 
an  extension,  and  was  informed  of  the  three  7^-eeks  tiotiec  being  requisite. 
Is  it  prc^bable  that  Commissioner  Burke  was  also  so  "ignorant  "  as  not 
to  know  when  an  application  icas  matle  to  him,  and  of  the  notice  re- 
quired by  his  ozvn  rule? — The  thing  is  too  absurd  for  comment  ;  and 
we  leave  the  counsel  seated  on  both  horns  of  his  dilemma. 

It  further  appears,  that  both  commissioners  viewed  the  claim  as  a 


80  A     REVIEW. 

most  meritorious  one,  and  fully  entitled  to  an  extension,  Commis- 
sioner Burke  so  expressed  himself  in  another  part  of  the  letter  referred 
to — advising  Congress  to  grant  it.  We  presume  the  sole  and  only 
reason  why  he  did  not  grant  it,  was  the  lack  of  time  to  give  "  three 
weeks  notice."  according  to  his  rule;  the  time  was  too  sJiort.  Com- 
missioner Ellsworth  did  not  grant  the  extension  because  the  notice 
would  be  too  long ;  and  thus  "between  the  short  and  the  long  of  it,"  and 
by  the  new  code  of  7noral  law  established  by  this  "  counsel  and  parties 
in  the  State  of  New  York,"  the  poor  patentee  is  to  be  deprived  and 
defrauded  of  his  just  rights!  We  say  deprived  of  his  just  rights ; — for 
both  by  the  law  of  1S36,  and  the  usage  of  the  Patent  Office,  inventors 
as  a  matter  of  course,  had  extensions  granted  for  sci'cn  years,  if  the 
claim  was  meritorious,  and  the  reward  inadequate,  during  the  fourteen 
years,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Board  of  Extensions.  As  before 
remarked,  these  facts  were  established  to  the  full  and  entire  satisfac- 
tion of  two  committees  of  the  Senate;  and  acting  on  these  reports,  the 
Senate  passed  a  bill  for  his  relief. 

Now  we  would  ask  any  and  all  right  minded  men,  both  in  and  out 
of  Congress,  who  are  willing  "  to  do  unto  others  as  they  would  wish  to 
be  done  by,"  if  it  would  be  right  or  just — would  it  be  in  accordance 
with  the  true  spirit  and  intentions  of  the  law — to  deny  an  extension  on 
these  grounds? 

How  was  the  uninitiated  and  unskilled  patentee  to  act  under  such 
circumstances,  when  even  this  "  counsel  learned  in  the  law,"  and 
*'  familiar  with  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office."  as  he 
professes  to  be,  is  so  completely  at  fault?  He  it  appears  only  knew 
of  the  ^'sixty  days'  rule;"  which  even  Congress  and  the  Commissioners 
were  ignorant  of.  Perhaps  there  will  have  to  be  a  "wretched  excuse 
about  ignorance,"  in  another  quarter,  before  the  "sixty  days"  are  over 
and  gone. 

\Ve  pass  by  the  insinuations  and  gross  charges  of  "pretended 
ignorance," — "sham  notice" — "never  intended  to  act  in  good  faith," — 
"wretched  excuse  about  ignorance  of  the  sixty  days'  rule" — "skulked 
the  tribunal  provided  by  law" — "creeps  quietly  and  unobserved  into 
the  committee  room,"  &c,  &c,with  the  single  remark,  that  they  are 
just  as  undeserved  as  they  are  unbecoming  and  uncalled  for. —No  ^^t*^ 
cause  needs  such  epithets  to  sustain  it;  and  it  is  perhaps  the  very  best 
evidence  of  a  bad  cause,  thus  needlessly  and  wantonly  to  assail  the 
reputation  of  another,  for  lack  of  manly  argument  and  sound  reasons, 
to  support  it.  Surely  this  "counsel"  could  not  expect  us  to  believe 
that  there  was  no  one  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  so  well 
qualified  as  himself,  to  judge  of  morals  and  propriety;— to  say  nothing 
about  law,  and  "the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office?  "  Has 
he  not  common  sense  enough  to  perceive,  that  these  denunciations 
reflect  in  no  measured  terms  on  the  Intelligence  and  //tf;/(?r  of  Senators, 
who  thoroughly  investigated  the  claim  and  passed  the  Bill? 

We  have  shown  by  the  testimony  of  both  Commissioners, that  they 
at  least  had  no  such  "sixty  days'  rule."  The  Act  of  July  4,  1836,  does 
not  contain  it,  in  section,  clause  or  line;  but  the  "rules"  that  did  exist, 


A   i<Evii:\v.  81 

originated  in  the  Board  ul  ICxtcnsions; — were  subject  to  change — were 
changed.  A  pamjihlet  of  "Information  "  published  November,  1842, 
and  lorwarded  by  Commissioner  Ellsworth,  "and  without  a  penny  of 
expense  "  to  an  applicant  but  a  short  time  before  he  went  out  of  ofifice, 
does  not  comtain  any  notice  of  even  his  "30  days'  rule;"  so  that  this  so 
oft  repeated  "si.vfy  difys  rule,"  had  not  t/iin  an  existence,  even  in  the 
fertile  brain  of  this  "counsel.  '  To  meet  the  prcsint  views  and  wishes 
of  these  very  disintircstcd  "parties," there  oiii^/it  to  lia^'c  been  a  '"sixty  days 
rule;"  and  it  should  have  been  like  the  laws  of  the  Modes  and  Persians, 
"which  alter  not,  neitlicr  do  the\'  change;  " — and  also  like  the  ''higher 
taiv  "  of  this  modern  "tyrant  who  published  his  edicts  by  writing  them 
in  small  letters,  and  placing  them  so  high  in  the  air  that  people  could 
not  read  them,  and  still  requiring  compliance,or  the  consequences." 

We  have  it  from  very  high  authority — both  sacred  and  profane, 
that  "  where  no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression."  Now  how  is  the 
"law  and  the  testimony?"  It  was  not  until  late  in  May,  184S,  that 
applicants  were  required  by  "  law,"  or  by  "  rule,"  to  give  60  days' 
notice;  and  months  /■//"Ar  the  petition, — by  the  advice  of  Hon.  Edmund 
Burke, — was  presented  to  Congress; — and  even  <?/?r;' the  Report  was 
made  in  its  favor  by  the  Committee  on  Patents  and  the  Patent  Ofifice, 
of  the  Senate! 

The  patent  expired  December  31,  1847.  The  petition  was  presented 
to  the  Senate  February  7,  1848.  The  bill  for  his  relief  was  reported 
May  15,  1848  and  was  both  printed  and  "published;"  noticed  as  a  part 
of  the  proceedings  of  Congress,  by  the  press  throughout  the  United 
States,  and  cxery  body  thus  notified  of  the  application. 

The  Lrw  requiring  the  60  days'  notice,  was  not  approved  and  oper- 
ative, until  May  27.  1848.  And  not  to  "  leave  a  single  head  standing," 
in  farmer  phrase,  the  pamphlets  of  the  Patent  Office  previous  to  this 
date,  published  //t*  such  notice,  if  two  honorable  and  able  Commission- 
ers are  worthy  of  credence. 

We  hope  the  learned  "  Counsel"  who  was  so  "familiar  with  the  rules 
and  regulations  of  the  Patent  Office,"  will  pardon  us  for  showing  him 
by  the  annexed  notice  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  that  so  late  as 
12  o'clock  Meridian  on  the  Third  Monday  in  P"ebruary,  1848,  there 
never  nad been  a  "Sixty  days'  rule:"  and  he  "  may  know  by  making  the 
proper  enquiries  at  the  proper  places,"  where  the  original  may  be 
found,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy;  and  he  may  perchance  also 
find  on  the  files  of  the  Patent  Office  pretty  decided  "traees,"  and  in 
writing  too,  not  "talks''  only — for  they  are  certainly  there — of  the 
reasons  and  argun:ents  in  favor  of  Hussey's  right  of  extension. 

Patent  Ofi-ice,  Jan'y.  21,  184S. 

On  the  petition  of  C.  H  M'cCormick  of  Steel's  Tavern,  Virginia, 
praying  for  the  extension  of  a  patent,  granted  to  C.  H.  M'Cormick 
for  an  improvement  in  Reaping  Machines,  for  seven  years  from  the 
expiration  of  said  patent,  which  takes  place  on  21st  day  of  June,  I848. 

It  is  ordered  that  the  said  petition  be  heard  at  the  Patent  Office,  on 
the  Third  Monday  in  February  at    12   o'clock   M.,  and  all  persons  are 


><2  A     REVIEW. 

notified  to  appear.and  show  cause  if  any  they  have,  why  said  petition 
ought  not  to  be  granted. 

Ordered  also  that  this  notice  be  published  in  the  Union  and 
National  Intelligencer,  Washington,  (and  several  other  papers)  once  a 
week  for  three  successive  zveeks  previous  to  the  Third  Monday  in  February 

next. 

Edmund  Burke. 
Commissioner  of  Patents. 

P.  S.— Editors  of  the  above  papers  will  please  copy  and  send  their 
bills  to  the  Patent  Ofifice  with  a  paper  containing  this  notice. 

To  insinuate  that  all  these  proceedings  were  "  secret  "  or"  covertly" 
done,  either  designedly,  or  in  fact,  is  a  perversion  of  the  truth,  and  an 
insult  to  Congress. 

From  the  foregoing  evidence,  the  candid  reader  will  judge  what 
degree  of  reliance  can  be  placed  on  any  of  the  broad  charges  and  sweep- 
ing denunciations  of  such  a  "  counsel  "  as  this.  He  appears  to  practice 
on  the  principle  that  the  "  end  justifies  the  means,''  regardless  alike 
of  facts  and  figures;  or,  he  manifests  a  degree  of  "  ignorance,"  wholly 
inexcusable  in  one  who  undertakes  to  enlighten  even  the  mechanic, 
much  less  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  We  are  aware  that 
advice  unsolicited, is  rarely  appreciated;  but  will  venture  to  suggest  to 
this  gentleman,  that  if  his  Z?////-/^  proceeds  from  ;r^// "  ignorance,"  it 
might  be  found  profitable  to  resume  his  studies  before  again  attempt- 
ing to  practice.  If  he  would  designedly 'wa^^o^Q  his  incorrect  statements 
on'^Mcmbers  of  Congress  and  others,  we  would  say  to  him— and  from 
a  longer  experience  with  the  world  than  he  has  had,—"  Honesty  is 
ahi'ays  the  best  policy,"— whether  in  getting  claimsthrough  Congress, 
or  in  his  intercota'se  with  "  the  rest  of  mankind." 

As  before  remarked,  it  is  brought  as  a  grave  charge  against  Hussey 
that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  ''sixty  a^^^j'.j' rule,"— the  man  confined  to 
his  workshop,  and  compelled  to  labor  with  his  own  hands  for  his  daily 
breads-while  this  same  "  counsel,"  a  resident  of  the  City  of  Washington, 
and  whose  occupation  is  to  prosecute  or  defeat  claims,>r  a  considera- 
tion, and  as  the  case  may  be,  is  still  more  ignorant. 

We  opine  that  "  Othello's  occupation's  gone,"  unless  he  finds  out  a 
way  to  manage  "  a  case  "  better  than  this. 

He  tells  us  that  the  business  was  all  done  in  the  "  most  secret  quiet 
manner:"  ///rv  did  not  "  know  that  the  petition  to  extend  the  patent 
was  before  the  Committee,"— did  "  not  know  that  it  was  published, 
until  divulged  by  accident;"— that,  "the  Committee,  of  course,  when 
relieved  from  their  labors,  desire  to  sink  the  shop  and  obtain  recrea- 
tion—and would  not  speak  of  the  business,"  &c.,  &c. 

Now  we  would  dLsk,whose  business  was  it  to  know  before  invading 
the  rights  of  others,  and  "investing  millions  of  dollars"  in  what  they 
did  know  w^s  never  invented  by  them?  What  would  it  avail  the 
Pirate  on  the  high  seas,  before  a  court  and  jury  when  indicted  for  felo- 
niously taking  the  property  of  others,  to  enter  the  "  wretched  excuse 
about  ignorance"  of  the  law,  and  allege  the  plea  that  he  "  was  artfully 


A    KKVIF.W.  83 

drawn  into  the  business,"  and  had  "  invested  vast  sums  of  mone\"  in 
his  ship?  And  what  think  you,  would  a  righteous  judge  probably 
answer  to  such  pleading  as  this?  Your  plea  cannot,  and  ought  not  to 
avail  you.  You  at  least  fcfiiio  that  the  property  was  not  yours.  You 
were  not  "  decoyed,"  or  "  artfull>'  drawn  into  "  this  piratical  business. 
But  vou  voluntakilv  mauk  vouk  (jwn  ki,ection  to  run  thk  hazard, 
FOR  Till';  SAKE  OF  GAIN.  You  uot  oulv  pi  under  the  poor  sailor  of  ship 
and  cargo,  but  you  would  turn  him  adrift  on  the  wide  ocean, without 
chart  or  compass,  and  with  on!}'  a  single  and  frail  plank,  to  die  a  lin- 
gering death.  You  ha\e  not  a  shadow  of  claim  on  the  justice  or 
mercy  of  the  court! 

He  thinks  however,  "  If  Hussey  had  cautioned  them-  -so  that  they 
would  have  been  prepared  to  resist  the  extension  or  avoid  falling  into 
the  snare — the  case  would  have  been  different;  but  his  course  has  been 
such  as  to  drmv  tlion  into  the  businc&s  [  ! !  |  and  it  remains  to  be  seen, 
whether,  having  thus  drawn  them  in,  he  shall  have  the  aid  of  Congress 
to  fleece  them." 

It  certainly  comes  with  a  very  bad  grace  from  these  parties  to  talk 
about  fleecing.  They  would  "  fleece  "  the  very  man — the  true  and  orig- 
inal inventor  by  their  own  showing — by  whose  efforts  and  long  devo- 
tion to  the  cause,  they  are  now  realizing  "  millions  of  dollars."  We 
trust  Congress  can  perceive  the  full  force  of  such  reasoning  as  this, and 
the  true  source  of  the  fleecing. 

We  like  the  Teacher  \\\\c\.\\qx  in  Lazo  or  Gospel,  whosQ  practice  cor- 
responds  with  his /';r<r/'/'5.  Hussey  aimed  at  no  concealment;  none 
was  practiced,  either  in,  or  out  of  Congress;  the  evidence  conclusively 
proves  it;  and  to  make  such  pretense,can  only  proceed  from  design. 
But  how  was  it  with  this  "  counsel  and  parties  in  the  State  of  New 
York?"  Was  Hussey  "warned"  or  "  cautioned  "  by  you.  or  a  pam 
phlet  placed  in  his  hands,  so  that  he  "  would  have  been  prepared  "  to 
refute  these  false  allegations  and  assumi:»tions?  Were  not  these 
pamphlets  "secretly"  distributed  to  some  Members  just  as  it  was  sup 
posed  the  bill  would  claim  the  action  of  the  House,  and  carefully 
"  concealed  "  and  kept  out  of  the  way  of  other  Members  believed  to  be 
favorable  to  the  petitioner,  and  thus  forestall  all  opportunity  to  reply? 
And  when  advised  that  the  Committee  on  Patents  of  the  House,  could 
not  report  at  this  Session,  were  not  the  pamphlets  again  "concealed  " 
as  much  as  possible,  or  sent  to  members  during  the  recess,  to  be  ready 
for  the  onslaught  at  the  next  session  of  Congress?  But  thanks  to  an 
honorable  high  minded  Western  Member,  who  witnessed  the  game,  a 
copy  soon  found  its  way  into  other  hands  than  it  was  intended  for. 

It  is  believed  such  was  the  fact.  This  however  is  certainly  known; 
that  one  or  more  of  the  agents  employed  to  distribute  the  jiamphlets. 
desired  their  o:>.'n  names  might  be  "  concctded."  "  Why  beholdest  thou  the 
mote  that  is  in  th\'  brother  s  eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is 
in  thine  own  eye? '. 

Having  shown  clearly,  and  proved,  by  the  most  reliable  testimony, 
that  all  the  charges  of  "  trick,'  --"  secrecy  " — "wretched  excuse  about 
ignorance,"  "  skulking,' &c.   trumpt  up    to    defeat   the  extension  were 


84  A    REVIEW. 

entirely  groundless. — not  to  say  malicious,  we  will  show,  and  prove 
also,  thatinstead  of  being  a"  delinquent  and  snare-setting  patentee" — 
"  setting  a  trap  for  manufacturers  " — or  "  that  he  had  so  long  concealed 
his  intention — to  obtain  an  extension,"  &c.,  that  Hussey  was  using 
every  honorable  effort  within  his  means  and  knowledge,  to  get  the 
Patent  extended  by  Congress. 

Those  who  have  ever  made  the  trial,  need  not  to  be  told  of  the  diffi- 
culties, expenses  and  delays — often  for  a  dozen  years — attending  the 
prosecution  of  private  claims.  No  matter  how  meritorious  they  may 
be.  there  is  nearly  always  delay;  and  often  too,  justice  is  so  long  post- 
poned,that  the  poor  applicant  after  spending  his  last  dollar  in  the 
fruitless  effort  for  expenses,  or  for  fees  to  a  set  of  Shylock's,is  forced 
to  abandon  his  claim  in  despair,  or  death  closes  the  scene  of  all  his 
earthly  labors  and  trials.  If  our  memory  serves  us,  there  was  once  a 
case  of  a  private  claim,  that  occupied  the  attention  of  Congress  for 
some  tiventy-five  to  tlm^ty  years;  and  that  claimant  a  widow  lady  too! 
It  is  believed  she  also  died  before  the  claim  was  adjusted.  Is  it  indeed 
so  very  strange  that  private  bills  were  delayed  in  Congress  from  1848 
to  1852-3,  the  most  exciting  period  in  the  political  annals  of  the  coun- 
try for  40  years? — and  following  upon  the  sectional  strife  resulting 
from  the  Mexican  War — the  admission  of  California  into  the  Union, 
and  the  consequent  agitation  of  that  all-absorbing  subject  slavery, 
which  appeared  for  a  time  likely  to  rend  asunder  even  the  Union 
itself?     But  "there  are  none  so  blind, as  those  that  zcw/Vsee." 

The  annexed  letters  are  deemed  quite  sufficient  to  establish  this 
point,  though  more  evidence,  if  necessary,  is  at  hand. 

Washington,  5th  Sept.,  1854. 
Obed  Hussey,  Esq.,  Baltimore — 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  recently  learned,  with  surprise  and  indigna- 
tion, that  certain  specidating  harpies  who  fill  their  coffers  with  the  prod- 
ucts of  other  men's  brains,  and  who,  in  your  case,  seek  to  "  reap 
where  they  sow  not,"  are  basely  and  unjustly  endeavoring  to  prevent  a 
renewal  of  your  patent  for  your  "Reaping  and  Mowing  Machine," 
upon  the  ground,  [among  others],  that  you  and  your  agents  have 
neglected  to  press  your  Claim  properly  before  Congress. 

I  have  been  your  Agent  from  the  time  the  claim  was  first  presented 
to  Congress,  and  know  that  the  Charge  is  entirely  unfounded. 

The  facts  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  and  belief,  are  as 
follows:  Your  Claim  for  a  renewal  was  presented  to  Congress  at  the 
very  first  Session,  dihcr  you  ascertained  that  your  application  to  the 
Commissioner  could  not  be  acted  upon  under  the  rules  of  the  Patent 
Office.  livery  paper  and  proof  necessary  to  establish  your  right  to  a 
renewal  of  your  patent,  ufider  the  existing  laxvs,  was  procured,  and 
promptly  placed  with  your  memorial,  before  Congress.  No  further 
proof  was  required  by  the  Committee  on  Patents,  in  the  Senate,  and 
your  right  to  a  renewal  was  fully  established  by  an  able  and  unanswer- 
able report  of  that  Committee,  accompanied  by  a  bill  for  a  renewal. — 
This  report  and    bill  were  printed  by  order  of  the  Senate,  and  were 


A     KKVIKW.  85 

noticed  as  a  part  of  the  proceeding's  of  Congress,  Ijy  the  press  through- 
out the  United  States,  and  every  body  thus  notified  of  your  applieation. 

From  that  period  to  the  present  time,  I  do  not  think  there  has  been 
a  single  Congress  at  which  all  proper  efforts  were  not  made  to  obtain 
the  action  of  that  Body.  Members  were  not  annoyed  with  indecent 
importimity;  nor  were  any  powerful  combinations  of  interested  indi 
viciuals  resorted  to,  \.o  force  your  Claim  upon  the  consideration  of  Con- 
gress. This  was  not  in  accordance  with  }our  taste,  or  your  means.  I 
well  remember,  however,  that  you  frecjuently  visited  this  City  on  that 
business;  and  that  at  almost  every  session,  you  cither  brought  or  sent 
to  me,  to  be  laid  before  Congress,  some  new  evidence  of  the  triumph 
of  your  great  invention. — These  document.s  were  faithfully  laid  before 
that  body,  or  sent  to  the  senators  from  Maryland  for  that  purpose. 
On  one  occasion,  as  your  agent,  I  addressed  a  somewhat  extended 
communication  to  the  Senators  from  Maryland,  attempting  to  show 
the  vast  importance  of  }-our  invention  to  the  Agricultural  interests  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  strong  claims  you  had  to  a  renewal  of  your 
patent,  and  requested  them  as  the  Representatives  of  your  State  in  the 
Senate,  to  give  their  attention  and  influence  to  accomplish  that  end. 

At  a  subsequent  Session,  this  request  was  repeated,  to  one  or  both 
of  the  Senators  from  that  State. 

I  can  also  state  with  certaint}-  that  hardly  a  Session  of  Congress 
has  passed  since  your  memorial  w  as  first  presented,  at  which  prominent 
and  Scientific  Agriculturists,  in  different  parts  of  the  Country,  who 
were  acquainted  with  the  merits  of  your  invention,  have  not  used  their 
influence  with  Members  of  Congress  to  obtain  a  renewal  of  your  patent. 
An\'  pretense  therefore,  that  your  Claim  has  not  been  duly  presented, 
notified  to  the  public,  and  urged  with  all  proper  care  and  diligence 
upon  the  attention  of  Congress,  I  repeat  is  totally  u?ifouuded. 

It  will  be  a  stain  upon  the  justice  of  the  Country,  if  one  whom  truth 
and  time  must  rank  among  its  greatest  Benefactors,  shall  be  stricken 
down  and  permitted  to  die  in  indigence  by  the  interested  and  unworthy 
efforts  thus  made  to  defeat  )'ou. 

Vou  are  at  liberty  to  use  this  statement  in  any  manner  you  may 
desire.  Very  truly  and  respectfulh-. 

Your  Ob't  Se'r'vt. 
CHA'S  E.  SHERMAN. 


Harkwogi),  gth  Mo.  7,  '54. 
Esteemed  Friend,  O.  Hussey : 

I  duly  received,  and  have  carefully  read  the  Pamphlet  by  \\*.  X.  P. 
Fitzgerald,  [the  attorney  for  a  few  interested  parties  at  the  North,]  in 
opposition  to  the  extension  of  the  Patent  of  1S33.  And  in  answer  to 
the  queries,  whether  the  charges  are  true  that  no  efforts  have  been 
made  to  procure  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  Congress,  or  that  they 
have  been  "  secreth' "  or  "covertly"  made,  I  can  state  from  m\-  per- 
sonal knowledge,  that  they  are  not  onl\'  untrue  in  fact,  but  entirely 
groundless.     I  was  not  previousl}' aware,  that  claims r^^/zA/ be  "secretly" 


86  A     KliVlEW. 

presented  ov  prosecuted,  and   "  secretly"  acted  on  b\-  tlie  two   Houses 
of  Congress! 

Some  years  since, — e\-en  before  purchasing  a  machine  for  my  own 
use,  I  received  numerous  letters  from  individuals  not  only  in  this,  but 
adjoining  States,  [and  some  of  them  entire  strangers  even  by  name,] 
desiring  my  opinion  both  as  a  farmer  and  machinist,  in  regard  to  their 
purchases  of  Reaping  Machines.  With  this  view  and  also  for  my  own 
benefit,  I  carefully  examined  every  machine  within  my  reach;  and  the 
result  was,  a  decided  conviction  that  "  Hussey's  Reaper"  was  the  most 
efficient,  strong,  and  durable;  and  that  the  peculiar  construction  of  the 
cutting  apparatus,  particularly  of  the  guards,  was  the  only  true  and 
efficient  principle  that  ever  had  been  invented  for  the  purpose. 

Many  machines  were  thus  purchased  on  my  recommendation;  and 
all,  without  exception  have  w^orked  well,  when  properly  managed. 
My  own  machine  has  much  more  than  realized  my  expectations;  for 
several  years  past,  doing  the  work  of  ten  or  a  dozen  scythes  in  the 
grass  fields,  doing  it  better,  and  at  less  than  one  fourth  of  the  expense. 

Knowing  that  an  application  was  pending  for  an  extension  of  the 
Patent,  and  greatly  desiring  to  see  the  inventive  talent  and  genius  of  our 
countrymen  properly  rewarded,  as  well  as  from  a  feeling  of  gratitude 
to  one  who  has  conferred  so  signal  a  benefit  on  the  Agriculturists  of 
the  country  at  large,  some  three  or  four  years  since  I  wrote  to  influen- 
tial characters  at  Washington,  urging  the  extension  as  due  to  the 
Inventor,  and  in  strict  accordance  with  both  the  letter  and  spirit  of 
the  Patent  Laws.  From  that  day  to  the  present,  I  have  not  failed 
at  all  proper  times  and  places,  with  Members  of  Congress  and  others, 
to  advocate  the  cause,  both  verbally, and  with  my  pen.  So  far  from 
desiring  "  secrecy  "  or  "  concealment,"  my  letters  were  written  with  the 
object,  and  full  permission  given,  to  print  and  publish  them. 

Acting  from  a  conscious  feeling  of  rectitude,  and  from  disinterested 
motives,  it  is  difficult  to  read  this  pamphlet  without  some  feeling  of 
indignation;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  say  which  is  the  most  censurable, — 
the  selfish  motives  that  appear  to  prompt  this  opposition,  and  to  take 
from  another  what  is  known,  and  admitted  to  be  his  right;  or,  the 
unscrupulous  disregard  of  those  amenities  of  social  life — a  due  regard 
for  the  private  character  of  others, — that  should  characterize  the  advo- 
cate and  gentleman,  everywhere;  and  which  are  not  often  seen  even  in 
the  pettyfogging  county  court  lawyer,  who  desires  to  pass  himself  off 
with  his'light,  "  brief,"  and  before  an  ignorant  jury,  as  something  extra. 
If  these  parties  cannot  effect  their  object  without  thus  traducing  pri- 
vate character,  they  will  not  succeed  in  that  way.  It  was  remarked  by 
a  wise  man,  "  that  there  was  no  danger  from  error,  if  truth  was  left 
free  to  combat  it."  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  in  this  case,  truth 
and  merit,  will  triumph  over  error  and  sordid  motives.  I  shall  cer- 
tainly aid  them  all  in  my  power,  humble  and  feeble  as  may  be  their 
advocate.  Very  respectfully, 

Edward  Stahi.kk. 

Several  pages  of  this  scurrilous  pamphlet  are  devoted  to  eonvey  the 
idea,  that  there  is  now  "a  secret  alliance  " — a  collusion  between  Cyrus 


A  KMviiiw.  y, 

H.  INIcCormick  and  Ol^cd  IIusslv,  to  obtain  this  extension  of  patent, 
in  order  that  they  may  "share  the  spoils!  "  It  is  a  strange  compound 
of  insinuation,  declamation,  inconsistency  and  absurdit)-:  and  it  is  about 
as  difficult  to  compete  with  the  "counsel  "  on  this,  his  favored  field,  with 
sound  art,uuiient  or  logical  reasoning,  as  to  attempt  to  "  bottle  mo<jn- 
shine"ior  future  use.  The  charge  is  not  sustained  by  a  particle  of 
evidence — nay,  he  even  endea\ours  to  vilify,  if  not  discredit  his 
own  witness,  C.  II.  IMcCormick,  whom  he  drags  on  the  witness  stand. 
McCormick  by  his  showing,  is  an  Alij:;crine  any  how; — but  if  he  will 
hell)  him  to  capture  this  prize,  he  "  shall  be  entitled  to  his  gratitude  ;  " 
if  not,  he  too  is  to  be  immolated  on  the  shrine  of  modern  Moloch. 
The  learned  "  counsel  "  is  very  like  an  errant  farmer  boy,  who  was  sent 
into  the  lield  to  catch  a  cunning  and  incorrigible  old  nag;  he  took  a 
nubbin  oi  corn  in  one  hand,  and  a  cudgel  \\\  the  other:  if  the  nubbin 
cheated  him,  to  be  bridled,  well  and  good;  but  if  too  cunning  to  be 
thus  caught,  then  came  down  the  cudgel.  The  very  learned  "  counsel  " 
certainly  deser\xs  a  patent  himself  for  his  ingenious  device  in  getting 
a  witness  to  testify  in  his  fa\or. 

This  however  is  like  all  the  other  charges  brought  against  Husscy; 
— not  even  "  founded  o\\  fact,"  as  the  writers  of  fiction  are  wont  to  say. 
It  is  not  proposed  to  enter  into  any  defence  of  C.  H.  McCormick.  or 
his  claim;  he  is  doubtless  quite  competent  to  take  care  of  himself 
against  this  assault;  and  if  no  better  testimony  can  be  brought  to 
invalidate  it,  the  task  will  be  an  easy  one.  Hut  it  is  due  to  him  and  to  all 
others  to  state  distinctly  and  j)ositively  that  the  charge  is  wholh-  gratu- 
itous and  unfounded. 

But  there  was  no  occasion  for  this  "  delinquent  and  snare  setting 
patentee  "  to  "set  a  trap"  at  all;  nor  need  "  Congress  j/r/V/^if  the  trap 
that  has  been  set  for  them,  i.  e.,  the  '  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York,' 
and  so  artfully  concealed."  Their  "  counsel  "  has  effectually  sprung 
it  on  the  real  trai^pers  by  his  own  bungling  and  "  ignorance,"  and  not 
on  the  innocent  and  unoffending^i,''^////('.  We  would  copy  entire,  pages 
9,  10,  II  and  12,  as  an  admirable  specimen  of  special  pleading. — the 
best  we  ever  saw,  considering,  there  was  neither  fact,  testimoii)-,  or  even 
tolerable  circumstantial  evidence  to  base  it  on, — onl}' that  it  woukl  too 
much  extend  our  review:  we  will  however  give  a  very  fair  and  full 
sample,  u  ith  an  analysis,  and  the  unprejudiced  reader  can  judge  for  him- 
self; and  also  whether  it  is  not  somewhat  like  the  patent  double-edged 
razor,  madt^  to  cut  both  ways.  It  was  not  however  a  very  useful  inven- 
tion--not  like  "  Hussey  s  reaper,"  which  cuts  besthoih  ways — for  vvhile 
the  operator  was  shaving  the  upper  lip  with  one  edge,  the  other  was  cut- 
ting his  nose.     The  counsel  says: 

'  Until  the  present  Congress,  Cyrus  H.  McCormick.  the  inventor, 
or  rather  eoiiipiler  of  "  McCormick's  reaping  machine."  was  opposed  to 
the  extension  of  this  patent,  and  has  been  constantU'  before  the  com- 
mittee seeking  the  extension  of  his  own  patent;  and,  as  he  was  per- 
fectly conversant  with  the  hi'^tory  of  the  Hussey  machine  and  with  the 
profits  deri\ed  from  it,  as  a  rival  niaeliine,  could  have  furnished  testi- 
mony to  defeat  the  extension. 


S8  A     KEVIICW. 

"  Now,  liowcver,  McCormick  h;u'ing  become  satisfied,  after  several 
years'  labor  before  Congress,  that  he  cannot  obtain  an  extension  of  his 
own  patent,  and  finding  Hussey's  machine  one  of  the  principal  obsta- 
cles in  his  way,  and  that  Hussey's  patent  will  be  more  available  for  the 
purposes  of  "  black  mail  "  than  his  own,  has  made  a  secret  alliance  with 
Husse}'  to  share  the  spoils,  and  has  prompted,  in  the  most  quiet  man- 
ner, an  extension  of  this  patent.  I  say  in  the  most  quiet  manner, 
because  I  am  not  aware  that  any  person  outside  of  the  committee  room, 
except  McCormick,  Hussey,  and  his  counsel,  knew  that  a  petition  to 
extend  the  patent  was  before  the  committee,  until  the  bill  to  extend  it 
was  reported — and  ev'en  then  it  was  not  published,  so  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  ascertain,  and  those  most  interested  were  not  aware  of  it 
until  it  was  di\ulged  by  accident.  The  committee,  of  course,  v\'hen 
relieved  from  their  labors,  desire  to  "  sink  the  shop"  and  obtain  recre- 
ation— and  would  not  speak  of  the  business  with  which  they  have  been 
burdened  in  their  hours  of  labor,  except  by  the  merest  chance.  Not 
a  word  of  testimony,  on  the  part  of  the  public  or  of  individuals,  was 
before  the  committee  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  but  very  distin- 
guished counsel  from  the  House  of  Representatives  appeared  before 
the  committee  in  Hussey's  favor.  Under  such  circumstances  it  was  of 
course  clearly  shown  that  Hussey  had  not  been  remunerated.  Rut  it 
might  have  been  very  difficult  to  establish  that  fact  before  the  Patent 
Oftice,  where  opposing  parties  have  a  right  not  only  to  call  witnesses, 
but  to  cross-examine.  It  may  have  been  made  to  appear  also  that 
the  rights  of  other  parties  would  not  be  injuriously  affected  by  the 
extension.  It  is  difficult  to  guess  what  may  be  clearly  proved  where 
o//e  party  has  ever\-thing  his  own  wa}'.  No  one  but  McCormick  had 
the  slightest  opportunity  to  oppose  before  the  committee.  The  case 
has  been  very  carefully  hidden  from  public  view — and  although  I  have 
not  the  means  at  this  moment  of  rebutting  any  thing  in  reference  to 
compensation,  &c.,  I  presume  the  meritorious  points  of  the  case  did  not 
cause  the  concealment.  I  do  not  kxoiv  but  that  a  proper  case  for  exten- 
sion might  have  been  made  out  in  1847 — '^ut  the  fact  that  it  was  not 
attempted  in  any  proper  way  makes  me  disbelieve  it.  And  now  other 
rights,  in  good  faith,  ha\'e  attached;  and  even  if  the  extension  would 
have  been  proper  in  1847,  it  is  not  so  in  1854.  But  the  circumstances 
indicate  that  it  was  never  a  proper  case  for  extension.  No  opportunity 
is  afforded  for  taking  or  presenting  testimony,  and  I  am  therefore 
obliged  to  rely  upon  what  is  clearly  within  the  reach  of  members 
of  Congress. 

"  I  have  stated  that  this  extension  is  favored  by  Mr.  McCormick, 
and  that  if  granted  it  will  realh-  be  for  his  benefit  —  to  give  him  the 
control  of  the  market,  and  enable  him  to  crush  all  others  as  he  has 
bcCn  for  years  striving  to  do,  with  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars 
which  he  has  made  out  of  his  cotnpilation  of  other  men's  inventions. 
His  own  application  for  extension  smells  so  rankly,  that  his  name 
or  interest  would  do  any  thing  rather  than  help  the  case;  and,  there- 
fore, if  he  is  really  opposed  to  the  extension,  I  shall  be  entitled 
to    his   gratitude   for  bringing   his    name   into   the   case   to   defeat    it. 


A     KKVIKW.  89 

It  nut.  he  is  anion<^f  the  o[jpoiiciits  of  my  clients,  and  therefore  the 
proper  subject  of  remark  in  this  connection. 

"  I  was  not  a  wi/mss  to  any  secret  arrangement  between  Hussey 
and  McCormick,  and  I  will  state  the  facts  which  I  know  in  reference 
to  it,  and  which  e\ery  member  of  Congress  ma\'  know  b\-  making 
the  projjcr  inquiries  at  the  proper  places. 

"  Antl  first.  The  Hussey  and  McCormick  machines  have  been 
ri\'als  e\er  since  McCormick  borrowed  and  compiled  enough  from 
his  neighbors  to  make  his  machine  of  any  value.  The  comijarative 
trials  of  the  two  in  Europe  and  America,  and  their  concurrent  use, 
prove  this  fact;  and  pro\e  that  McCormick  would  be,  on  this  ground, 
the  first  to  oppose  this  extension  if  he  had  not  a  secret  interest  in  it. 
The  two  parties  have  always  had  adverse  interests. 

"Secondl)'.  If  Hussey's  patent  be  renewed,  without  an  understand- 
ing with  McCormick,  McCormick's  machine  could  not  be  built,  sold, 
or  used,  without  infringing  Hussey's  patent;  and  Hussey  would  have 
the  right  to  enjoin  him,  and  prex'cnt  his  operations  entirely  —  and 
recover  damages,  if  McCormick  made,  sold  or  used  them,  or  if  any 
person  claiming  under  him  did  so.  So  that  McCormick's  present 
lucrative  trade  at  his  numerous  factories  would  be  entirely  cut  off. 

"Thirdly.  McCormick  was  the  only  one  of  those  interested  in 
harvesting  machines  that  knew  of  Hussey's  petition  —  he  did  knoiv  it, 
as  almost  any  member  of  the  Senate  committee  .can  testify.  And 
although  this  extension,  if  not  for  his  benefit,  would  shut  up  his 
factories  or  lay  him  under  contributions  at  the  pleasure  of  Hussey, 
he  does  7iot  oppose  it,  or  if  there  be  a  shoiu  of  opposition,  it  is  of  that 
kind  which  helps  on  the  extension  —  the  opposite  of  '' dai>iiiing  li'ith 
faint  praise'' - — glorifying  by  faint  opposition,  which  is  much  more 
effective  than  any  (/mr/ support  he  could  give  it.  He  is  at  this  time 
(after  his  own  extension  is  finally  thrown  under  the  table)  here  pulling 
the  wires  to  procure  this. 

"  Fourthly.  It  will  be  found  by  careful  observation  that  all  the 
strong  friends  of  McCormieJc  s  e.xtefision  have  transferred  their  zeal  to  the 
extension  of  Hussey. 

"  If  these  circumstances  are  not  sufficient  to  establish  my  position, 
more  would  be  equally  ineffectual  — but  I  think  they  will  convince 
others,  as  they  have  convinced  me.  The  conduct  of  McCormick 
is  to  my  mind  inexplicable  on  any  other  hypothesis.  The  extension 
is  intended  for  his  benefit,  and  if  granted  would  enable  him  to  tramjile 
on  all  subsequent  inventors  and  manufacturers,  as  he  has  for  years 
been  striving  to  do  by  an  extension  of  his  old  patent  of  1834  —  which 
is  good  for  nothing  else.  With  this  extension  it  would  be  perfectly 
easy,  without  the  in\'estment  of  a  dollar  of  capital,  except  the  pittance 
which  is  to  be  paid  to  Husse\-.  to  extort  from  subse(.}uent  inventors 
and  manufacturers  ffty  tJious(7nd  doUars  annual!}'.  Not  that  the  inven- 
tion is  worth  any  such  sum,  but  it  would  be  better  for  manufacturers 
to  pay  it.  than  to  entirely  remodel  their  machines.  The  cutters  used 
at  the  present  daj'  are  improvements  upon  Husse>''s.  not  what  Hussey 
invented  and  patented,  but  the\'  embrace  a  single  future  of  liis,  and 
would  therefore  be  controlled  by  his  patent. 


9<l  A     REVIEW. 

■•  I  think  1  may  safely  say  that  the  extension  of  this  patent  would 
be  without  a  parallel  in  the  annals  of  extensions.  I  am  familiar  with 
the  subject  of  patents,  but  have  no  recollection  of  a  single  case 
of  extension,  where  the  thing  patented  was  in  extensive  use,  and  had 
been  public  property  for  six  years  before  the  extension.  The  law 
presumes  that,  in  fourteen  years  of  exclusive  possession,  any  inventor 
is  properly  rewarded,  and  an  extension  can  never  be  granted  under 
the  spirit  of  our  patent  laws,  in  eqj((7l  justice  to  other  inventors, 
except  in  extraordinary  cases.  The  presumptions  are  all  against  the 
patentee,  who  has  enjoyed  fourteen  years  of  monopoly,  and  cannot 
properly  be  set  aside  by  ex-parte  affidavits  and  statements,  where 
the  party  has  skulked  the  tribunal  provided  by  law,  and  refused 
to  subject  his  case  to  the  scrutiny  which  it  prescribes,  but  creeps 
quietly  and  unobserved  to  the  committee  room,  with  no  notice 
to  those  whose  rights  he  is  attempting  stealthily  to  invade. 

"  Mr.  Hussey  is  now  a  man  advanced  in  years. — His  character  was 
long  since  formed,  and  we  may  easily  judge  from  his  past  what  he  would 
be  likely  to  do,  left  to  the  promptings  of  his  own  mind,  at  the  present 
time.  The  fact  that  he  has  so  long  concealed  his  intention  to  obtain 
an  extension,  proves  conclusively  that  he  would  not  now  ask  it,  unless 
he  has  been  setting  a  trap  for  manufacturers,  or  has  become  the  cat's 
paw  of  a  more  designing  and  grasping  man;  and  in  either  case,  I 
respectfully  submit,  that  his  petition  should  be  promptly  rejected  and 
dismissed. — If  the  case  had  possessed  commanding  merit,  it  would  at 
the  proper  time,  have  been  laid  before  the  tribunal  which  Congress  in  its 
justice,  liberality,  and  providence,  has  long  since  established  for  the 
extension  of  patents,  where  the  inventor  has,  w^ithout  fault  or  neglect, 
failed  to  obtain  the  remuneration  to  which  he  is  reasonably  entitled. 
This  Hussey  has  omitted  to  do,  and  the  i)resumptions  from  this  omis- 
sion and  delay  are  irresistible." 

The  learned  "  counsel "  very  gravely  states,  "  I  was  not  a  zvitness  to 
any  secret  arrangement  between  Hussey  and  McCormick;"  yet  he 
charges,  and  attempts  to  prove,  without  producing  a  single  witness 
what  is  in  itself  an  absolute  absurdity,  and  by  his  own  showing;  that 
because  McCormick  "  after  years  of  labor  before  Congress,  finding 
that  he  cannot  get  an  extension  for  his  worthless  patent,  is  now  at 
Washington  pulling  the  wires,  and  working  for  Hussey;"  and  "  has 
prompted  in  the  most  quiet  manner  the  extension  of  his  patent;  the 
opposite  of  dam/iini^  with  faint  praise,  glorifying  by  faint  opposition," 
in  order  that  he,  the  veritable  Cyrus  \\.  McCormick,  the  "  eonipi/er  of 
McCormick's  Reaping  Machine,  w'ith  a  quarter  of  a  million  of  dollars, 
which  he  has  made  out  of  his  compilation  of  other  men's  inventions," 
the  man  "to  trample  on  all  subsequent  inventors  and  manufacturers, 
as  he  has  been  for  years  striving  to  do,  by  an  extension  of  his  old 
patent  of  1834,  which  is  good  for  nothing  else,"  may  *'\Q.vy  black  tnaiV 
on  these  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York,  out  of  Hussey 's  patent! 
His  great  rival  too,  at  the  "  World's  Fair  in  London,"  and  "  the  two 
parties  who  have  always  had  adverse  interests." 

So  it  would  seem,  the  Lioti  does   actually  lie  down  with  the  La?ub, 


A     HKVIKW.  91 

and  all  is  at  IVacc!  If  this  idea  of  a  "secret  alliance"  is  not  really 
and  truly  a  "sublime  conception,"  it  is  simply  ritliculous. 

It  may  be  that  they  have  been  in  some  sort  ri\als  in  Reaping  the 
golden  harvest  fields  of  the  South,  the  East,  and  the  fertile  prairies  of 
the  threat  West;  and  we  beliexe  they  have  even  crossed  the  broad  At- 
lantic to  exhibit  their  prowess  antl  skill,  and  "asttjiiish  the  natives"  on 
KuLjlish  soil.  Hut  we  never  before  heard  of  an\'  "  secret  alliance,"  any 
conspiracy  to  rob  others,  and  then  "  to  share  the  spoils." 

Nor  have  we  yet  heard  that  any  one  of  these  "  parties  in  the  State 
of  New  York "  represented  their  country  at  the  "  World's  Fair  in 
London;"  or  have  added  a  particle  to  the  wide  spread  fame  and  re- 
nown acquired  there  for  American  ins^cnuity  and  inventive  talent,  that 
swept  over  this  continent  with  lii:;^htning  speed,  and  was  hailed  with 
dclii^dit,  and  with  fcclini^s  of  national  pride,  from  one  end  of  the  Union 
to  the  other. 

Where  7tr;r  these  "  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York  "  all  this  time, 
with  their  "valuable  improvements  on  Hussey's  patent."  when  the 
London  Times  and  other  kindred  prints  were  jeering  and  taunting  us 
with  sending  "  tread  mills  "  and  "  fl\-ing  machines  "  to  the  "  Exhibition 
of  the  Industry  of  all  Nations?" 

Were  they  engaged  in  concocting  this  scheme  to  deprive  an  honest 
inventor  of  his  honestly  acquired  and  legal  rights?  Or  were  they  not 
employed  in  adding  to  the  aforesaid  "  millions  "  by  "  springing  the 
trap"  in  the  shape  of  '' bhjck  wi^?//"  on  a  poor  brother  inventor  and 
manufacturer,  who  was  compelled  to  earn  his  daih-  bread  by  the  sweat 
of  his  brow? 

If  the  learned  "  counsel "  has  had  much  practice  in  Courts  of 
Law,  he  must  be  aware,  that  a  "  TczV/'/^'.y^  "  may  sometimes  prove  too 
much;  or  in  attempting  to  prove  one  thing  a  little  too  stroug,  he  may 
prove  quite  the  opposite.  As  he  appears  to  have  quite  a  fancy  to 
"cross-examine  witnesses."  we  will  bring  ///;//  on  the  stand:  this  is  cer- 
tainly fair,  for  he  has  gi\en  in  his  "testimony  in  open  court;"  and  as 
this  witness  has  completely  failetl  \o  prove  any  thing  for  "  parties  in  the 
State  of  New  York,"  perhaps  he  may  prove  something  for  a  poor 
patentee — "  who  is  now  a  man  advanced  in  years,"  and  who  "  has  be- 
come the  cat's-paw  of  a  more  designing  and  grasping  man."  The^^tv/- 
erons  delight  in  succouring  the  aged  and  oppressed. 

"  Teach  me  to  feel  another's  woe, 
And  /t/t/t'  the  fault  I  see; 
That  t>u->rv  I  to  others  show, 
T/iat  mercy  show  to  me. " 

Does  a  Plaintiff — a  poor  man  for  instance,  in  an  action  at  common  law 
against  a  millionaire,  lose  his  "  inchoate  right."  if  the  case  is  in  litiga- 
tion for  "  six  years?"  or  for  six  times  six  years,  and  subject  to  all  the 
glorious  uncertainties  of  the  law,  b\-  the  management  of  cunning,  or 
the  neglect  of  lazy  "counsel?"  Is  not  the  entry  on  the  Docket  or 
'' Journar'  prima-facie  evitlence  that  the  case  was  neither  "  carefully 
concealed,"  nor  "abandoned?"  Would  the  learned  gentleman  con- 
sider it  even  handed  justice  to  lose  his  just   debt,  because  the  clerk  of 


92  A    REVIEW. 

the  court,  by  his  arbitrary  and  changeable  "  rules  "  refused  to  docket 
the  case,  not  having  had  either  ''  sixty  daysj'  "  thirty  days,"  or  "twenty- 
one  days  notice"  before  court,  and  of  which  notice  the  plaintiff  was 
entirely  ignorant?  We  all  k/unu  a  rich  man  does  not  thus  lose  his 
"  inchoate  right;"  but  with  ^ poor  man,  the  case  may  possibly  be  dif- 
ferent. 

If  the  Patent,  and  claim  for  extension  have  no  merit,  no  originality, 
as  you  plainly  intimate,  and  indeed  assert,  why  oppose  it,  and  make 
such  strenuous  efforts  to  defeat  it?  As  counsel  well  versed  in  the  law, 
and  "  familiar  with  the  subject  of  patents  "  as  you  allege,  you  07ight 
to  know  that  the  parcJmicnt  even  with  the  signature  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  and  the  "broad  seal "  attached,  does  not  make  it 
valid.  Would  not  "  the  courts  "  promptly  set  aside  all  such  spurious 
claims? 

You  say,  "  It  is  found  by  careful  observation,  that  all  the  strojig 
fi'icnds  of  McCormick's  extension  [meaning  of  course  in  both  Houses  of 
Congress]  have  transferred  their  zeal  to  the  extension  of  Hussey  " 
Now  admitting  this  to  be  true,  a  single  isolated  fact  surrounded  by  a 
mass  of  fiction,  what  is  the  7nost  obvious  inference.  Is  it  not  strong 
presumptive  evidence,  that  there  is  merit  in  the  claim,  and  that  all  who 
zi'il/,  can  see  it?  unless  we  admit,  but  which  the  court  cannot,  that 
the  members  of  Congress  are  all  a  set  of  turn-coats,  and  devoid  of 
principle. 

Again,  you  say,  "  with  this  extension  it  would  be  perfectly  easy, 
without  the  investment  of  a  dollar  of  capital,  except  the  pittance  to 
be  paid  to  Hussey,  for  McCormick  to  extort  from  subsequent  in- 
.ventors  and  manuiacturers  Ji/ty  t/io7isand doi/^i'rs  annually."  Do  not  the 
words  subsequent  inventors,  twice  repeated  in  the  same  paragraph,  im- 
ply an  antecedent,  and  that  even  you  consider  "  Hussey  "  a  previous 
inventor,  and  having  a  prior  claim?  True,  you  also  state,  "  not  that 
the  invention  is  worth  any  such  sum,  but  it  would  be  better  for  the 
manufacturers  to  pay  it,  than  to  entirely  remodel  their  machines." 
Now  will  you  please  explain  to  the  court  why,  and  how  it  is,  when  you 
say  "  no  man's  rights  are  infringed,"  that  it  is  better  to  pay  ''fifty  thou- 
sand dollars  '  annually,  than  to  make  a  slight  alteration — to  change  a 
"  single  feature  "  in  their  machines,  and  use  their  oivn  inventions  only? 
Why.  if  "the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,"  mtist 
be  told,  "The  cutters  used  at  the  present  day,  are  improvements  upon 
Hussey's,  not  what  Hussey  invented  and  patented,  but  they  'embody 
some  of  the  general  features' — 'embrace  some  of  the  elements' — ern- 
brace  a  single  feature  of  his,  and  would  therefore  be  controlled  by  his 
patent."  !! 

Ah!  this  looks  like  coming  to  the  point — no  evasion,  no  subter- 
fuge here;  "one  more  question,  and  you  may  come  down  Sir."  As 
you  appear  to  be  quite  "  familiar"  with  such  subjects,  will  you  have 
the  goodness  to  explain  to  the  Court,  of  how  many  "  elements," 
"  general  features,"  or  single  features,"  these  said  "  cutters,"  ''origiyial 
and  improved^'  consist  of?  No  answer! — Well  sir,  as  a  witness  is  not 
bound  by  law  to  criminate  himself,  we  will  waive  this  question;  you 


A     KKVIKW.  93 

no  doubt,  like  other  counsel,  tiiul  it  much  more  con\enicnt  to  ask,  than 
to  armvcr  some  questions. 

You  have  repeatedly  s[)oken  of  "  ulack  mail;"  do  you  understand 
it  to  mean,  paying  money  as  an  et[uivalent  to  another  man,  for  the  use 
of  his  invention  or  patent?  Have  your  "clients," — tiie  "  jjrinciple  of 
them,"  who  are  the  assi<;nees  of  a  poor  patentee,  e\er  "  sued,"  "  en- 
joined," or  "  le\ied  bliuk  niail"  on  others, — those  who  attempted,  or 
made  use  of  their  "improvements  upon  Ilussey's  patent?  Is  not  the 
true  and  only  cause  of  all  your  opposition  to  Hussey's  extension,  the 
desire  on  your  part  to  "skulk  the //v/rr tribunal,"  and  thus  avoid  pay- 
ing even  the  most  reasonable  and  just  compensation  to  him,  whom 
you  know,  and  admit,  to  be  the  true  and  original  in\entor  of  the  most 
valuable  "  feature  "  in  the  machine,  while  at  the  same  time  you  unhesi- 
tatingly and  unscrupulously  "sue,"  "enjoin,"  and  "levy  black mair'  on 
others,  and  without  a  blush,  coolly  pocket  the  proceeds? 

We  think  we  have  heard  of  this  "counsel"  before;  and  would 
respectfully  ask  him  if  he  is  not  now  emplo)'ed  by  Howard  &  Com- 
pany, these  "parties  in  the  State  of  New  York,"  in  sueing.  enjoiinng, 
and  levying  ''black  fnail"  at  this  present  time  on  a  manufacturer  in 
New  Jersey,  for  an  alleged  infringement  of  their"  bent  ar/n?" — and  to* 
which  they  probably  have  about  as  much  legitimate  claim  of  inven- 
tive principle,"  as  has  Santa  Anna,  "  by  the  grace  of  God,"  to  the 
throne  of  the  Montezumas'. 

Can  the  intelligent  reader  fail  to  see,  and  most  clearly,  that  so  far 
as  the  reasons, — for  argionents  they  cannot  be  justly  termed — which 
are  here  assigned,  and  designed  by  these  parties  to  defeat  this  exten- 
sion, go  to  establish  the  fact,  that  Hussey  is  the  original  inxentor  of 
this  most  important  "  element,"  this  "  feature"  in  the  guard  and  cut- 
ting apparatus,  and  so  much  coveted,  that  renders  their  machine  a 
practical  and  available  imi)lement?  Such  is  certainly  the  fact.  And 
do  they  not  show,  impotent  and  lame  as  they  are  for  their  intended 
object,  that  the  whole  drift  and  intent  of  the  nefarious  scheme  is  to  fill 
their  own  pockets  at  his,  and  the  farmer's  expense,  regardless  alike  of 
law,  and  every  principle  of  justice  and  fair  dealing?  It  must  be  re- 
garded by  e\ery  disinterested  and  unprejudiced  tribunal,  as  a  lawless, 
rapacious,  and  most  unfeeling  attempt  to  consummate  an  act  of  the 
grossest  injustice. 

How  does  all  that  we  have  quoted,  accord  with  what  we  find  on 
page  7  of  this  singular  production?  That,  "Inventors  should  be 
treated  justly  and  e\en  kindly,  and  a  degree  of  indulgence  should  be 
extended  to  them  where  their  rights  are  concerned!" — which  simply 
means  we  suppose,  if  it  means  anything,  "we  want  your  property. 
Wright  or  wrong,  and  are  determined  to  execute  you;  but  will  provide 
a  soft  silken  cord,  that  will  appear  a  Jiittlc  more  decent  and  merciful." 
But  the  texture  of  the  cloak  thrown  over  to  liide  its  nakedness  is  so 
flimsy  and  thin,  and  withal  so  poorly  woven  together,  that  it  falls  to 
pieces  almost  by  its  own  specific  gravity, — it  only  the  more  clearly 
shows  its  deformity: — is  but  "  a  cloak  of  co\etousncss." 

To  show  the  just  a[)preciation  of  this  great  inxention,  we  ha\-e  pre- 


94  A     REVIEW. 

viousl}'  quoted  from  hic^h  and  official  autliority,  the  Hon.  Edmund 
Burke:  and  it  is  sustained  by  the  concurrent  testimony  and  opinion  of 
the  civilized  world.  From  the  same  hii^h  authority  we  will  quote,  to 
show  a  propo  appreciation  of  the  rights  of  inventors,  and  of  the  lawless 
and  unprincipled  depredators  on  those  rights. 

Patent  Office  Rep.  1846,  page  9. 

"  In  connexion  with  the  revision  and  amendment,  of  the  present 
patent  laws,  I  would  remark  that,  in  my  judgment,  some  additions  to 
the  present  enactments  are  necessary  for  the  more  effectual  encour- 
agement and  protection  of  inventors  and  patentees. 

"  The  existing  laws,  while  professing  to  give  to  the  inventor  the 
exclusix'c  enjoyment  of  his  invention  for  the  term  of  fourteen  years, 
do,  in  fact,  afford  to  him  but  very  little  protection.  The  fruits  of  his 
genius  and  his  toils  are  constantly  liable  to  be  wrested  from  him  by  the 
unscrupulous  and  dishonest,  who,  too  often  countenanced  by  public 
opinion,  are  apt  to  regard  the  rights  of  the  inventor  as  the  fruits  of  a 
monopoly  which  it  is  a  merit  instead  of  a  wrong  to  break  down  and 
destroy;  and  the  more  valuable  the  invention,  the  more  liable  is  the 
patentee  to  this  species  of  invasion  and  injury,  as  there  is  more  induce- 
ment held  out  to  its  perpetration.  The  stealthy  thief  and  the  mid- 
night burglar  are  justly  regarded  as  the  pests  and  enemies  of  society, 
and  are  therefore  seized  and  punished  by  penalties  severe  in  propor- 
tions to  the  turpitude  of  their  crimes;  yet  their  depredations  are  com- 
mitted on  things  which  are  made  by  law  the  subjects  of  property,  and 
which  may  be  acquired  by  industry  or  by  purchase.  The  right  of  the 
inventor  to  his  invention,  in  the  judgment  of  all  enlightened  minds, 
cannot  but  be  viewed  as  far  more  sacred  than  mere  things  of  property. 
It  is  a  mental  creation,  or  rather  the  discovery  of  a  principle  or  thing 
never  before  known  to  the  world,  and  may  be,  and  very  many  inven 
tions  have  been,  often  productive  of  countless  blessings  to  the  human 
family,  affecting  their  destinies  as  individuals  and  as  communities 
through  all  time.  When  the  wonderful  discoveries  of  a  Watt,  a  Ful- 
ton, a  Whitney,  and  an  Arkwright,  and  the  great  results  to  individuals 
and  to  nations  which  have  followed  from  them,  are  contemplated,  it  is 
not  difficult  to  realize  the  value  of  the  splendid  gifts  which  science, 
through  their  instrumentality,  has  bestowed  upon  man,  nor  to  estimate 
the  claims  which  the  true  inventor  has  upon  society.  He  may  truly 
be  called  the  pioneer  of  civilization,  the  explorer  of  the  unknown 
world  of  science  and  art.  And  yet  how  many  of  those  truly  great 
benefactors  to  their  race  have  fallen  victims  to  ingratitude  and  wrong, 
and  gone  down  to  their  graves  in  penury  and  sorrow.  The  case  of 
Ely  Whitney,  our  countryman,  the  inventor  of  the  cotton  gin,  is  but 
one  am.ong  innumerable  instances  in  which  the  fruits  of  splendid  gen- 
ius have  been  wrested  from  its  possessor  by  the  unprincipled  depre- 
dator upon  patent  rights.  It  is  familiar  to  all  that  that  great  inventor, 
whose  name  stands  out  like  a  bright  and  lustrous  star  in  the  constel- 
lation of  genius,  was  compelled  to  expend  all  the  profits  of  his  inven- 
tion in  fruitless  efforts  to  protect  it  from  infringement,  and  finally  died 
a  victim  to  debt  and  disappointment. 


A     RKVIKW.  95 

"  Many  valuable  inventions  arc  now  used  in  secret  and  kept  from 
the  world,  on  account  of  the  impunity  with  which  patent  rights  can  be 
infringed;  secrecy  beinj^  abetter  protection  to  the  iinentor  than  the  law. 

"  These  reflections  are  indulged  in  with  a  view  to  awaken  in  the 
public  mind  a  proper  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  toils  and  labor  of 
the  inventor,  and  of  his  claims  to  full  and  effectual  protection  in  the 
enjoyment  of  the  ftuits  of  his  genius  and  skill,  and  to  enforce  with 
more  emphasis  the  suggestions  which  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  submit  in 
relation  to  such  amendments  of  the  law  as  may  be  necessary  for  the 
security  of  the  rights  of  inventors.  The  principal  difficulties  which 
the  patentee  has  to  encounter,  under  the  present  laws,  in  enforcing  his 
rights,  arise  from  two  circumstances:  first,  from  the  fact  that  the  ques- 
tion of  originality  may  be  raised  on  every  trial  for  infringement;  and, 
secondly,  the  almost  total  inefficacy  of  the  existing  law  to  pre\ent  in- 
fringement. 

"  In  ex'cry  application,  the  question  of  the  originality  of  the  inven- 
tion is  thoroughly  in\estigated  by  the  Patent  Office;  and  as  it  is 
decided  affirmatively  or  negatively,  the  patent  is  issued  or  denied. 
If  the  patent  is  granted,  it  is  very  properly  (as  the  office  cannot 
claim  infallibility)  deemed  by  the  law  only  />ri/;ia /cnie  evidence 
of  the  originality  of  the  invention,  and  of  the  right  of  the  patentee 
to  recover  damages  for  infringement  of  his  claim.  Yet  there 
should  be  some  point  at  which  this  question  should  be  deemed  as  con- 
clusively settled,  and  the  right  of  the  patentee  to  recover  made  abso- 
lute, or  the  patent  declared  to  be  a  nullity.  Yet.  under  the  existing 
laws,  such  is  not  the  fact;  and  although  the  question  of  originality  may 
have  been  decided  by  twenty  juries,  in  as  many  different  trials,  it  is 
just  as  much  open  to  dispute  in  all  subsequent  trials. 

"  This  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  patentee  to  recover  for  infringe- 
ments, in  cases  in  which  the  in\ention  is  a  very  valuable  one,  and  the 
infringer  a  wealthy  corporation,  amounts  almost  to  an  insuperable  one, 
as  he  is  kept  in  the  law,  and  harassed  by  litigation,  until  the  term  for 
which  his  patent  runs,  expires;  and  he  is  left  without  adequate  remu- 
neration for  his  invention,  and  sometimes  made  poorer  than  when  he 
commenced  the  fruitless  attemjjt  to  vindicate  his  rights  by  an  appeal 
to  the  law  for  redress." 

Pat.  Off.  R.  1847,  pages  7  and  9. 

"  In  my  former  reports  I  have  recommended  a  change  in  some  of 
the  features  of  the  patent  law  as  it  now  exists.  For  the  nature  of 
those  recommendations,  and  the  reasons  on  which  they  are  founded. 
I  would  respectfully  refer  to  the  annual  reports  of  this  office,  for  1845 
and  1846.  In  my  judgment  the  changes  proposed  are  necessary  to 
give  adequate  security  to  that  valuable  and  meritorious  class  of  our 
citizens  engaged  in  inventive  pursuits.  As  the  law  now  is,  the  reme- 
dies which  it  affords  to  patentees  are,  in  most  cases,  inadequate  to  the 
protection  of  their  rights  and  the  prevention  of  infringement  ujion 
them  by  that  unscrupulous  and  unprincipled  class  of  persons,  who 
make  it  a  practice  willfully  to  dejiredate  upon  patent  rights,  and  who, 
from  the  basely  criminal  character  of  the  offence  which  they  commit. 


96  A     KKVIEW. 

are  stigmatized  by  the  application  to  them  of  the  infamous  epithet  of 
pirate.  Certainly, adequate  protection  should  be  given  to  the  honest 
inventor  who  devotes  his  substance  and  his  incessant  toil  for  the  ben- 
efit of  society,  against  the  freebooters  who  in\'ade  without  scruple  his 
property,  which,  to  him,  is  more  sacred  and  invaluable,  because  it  is 
the  cherished  creation  of  his  own  genius. 

"  But  while  his  exclusive  property  in  his  invention  exists,  it  must 
be  considered  that  the  inventor  has  a  right  to  demand  of  the  Govern- 
ment, the  most  ample  security  and  protection  in  its  enjoyment.  This 
security  and  protection  he  does  not,  under  our  present  imperfect  sys- 
tem, enjoy.  On  the  contrary,  the  difficulty  and  expense,  and  the  ab- 
solute impossibility,  in  some  cases,  of  vindicating  his  rights,  have  ren- 
dered the  present  laws  enacted  for  his  protection,  almost  absolute 
nullities.  To  remedy  this  imperfection  in  the  existing  system,  is  the 
object  of  the  amendments  of  the  patent  laws,  proposed  in  the  two 
former  reports  of  the  undersigned. 

"  While  the  steam  engine,  most  potent  of  all  the  creations  of  gen- 
ius, is  daily  coursing  before  our  eyes,  wafting  us  upon  the  wings  of 
the  wind  its  precious  freight  of  human  life,  and  its  countless  treasures 
of  industry  and  commerce;  while  the  mysterious  telegraph  speedsour 
thoughts  with  the  swiftness  of  lightning  which  is  its  obedient  aud 
trusty  messenger;  while  magnificent  manufactories  stud  our  land,  stun- 
ning but  delighting  us  with  the  never-ceasing  movement  of  their  won- 
der-working machinery,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  remark  upon  the 
incalculable  value  of  the  labors  of  the  inventor  and  his  claims  upon 
society  for  protection  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  just  rights.  And, 
sooner  or  later,  the  undersigned  is  confident  they  will  be  fully  recog- 
nized and  protected  by  the  enlightened  legislators  of  a  great  repub- 
lic, whose  progress  has  been  so  much  accelerated  b\^  their  genius  and 
enterprise." 

Patent  office  Rep.  1849 — 'S^'  Comm.  Ewbank. 

"  With  respect  to  the  modification  of  the  patent  laws,  I  beg  leave 
to  refer  to  the  able  reports  of  my  immediate  predecessor;  whose  views 
as  to  the  necessity  of  giving  further  security  to  inventors,  accorded 
with  my  own,  and  to  whose  forcible  language  on  the  subject  I  can  add 
nothing.  It  is  admitted  that  all  legislation  which  has  in  view  the  se- 
curity of  an  exclusive  right,  is  intended  to  guard  the  public  good 
against  a  violation  of  the  faith  reposed  in  its  bestowal.  That,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  the  duty  of  the  legislature,  if  it  deems  proper 
to  extend  to  individuals  or  corporations  such  right  on  certain  condi- 
tions, to  protect  them  in  its  enjoyment.  That  such  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree  is  not  the  case  in  regard  to  inventors  must  be  obvious  to  those 
who  have  been  conversant  with  the  operation  of  the  patent  laws  now 
in  force.  It  is  not  expected,  in  view  of  their  modification,  that  a  per- 
fection can  be  attained  which  will  meet  every  emergency;  but  the 
least  which  should  be  done  is  to  apply  a  remedy  whenever  an  object 
designed  by  enactment,  is  defeated  in  its  operation. 

"Some  years  of  experience  seeni  to  have  illustrated  the  inoperative 
effect  of  the  law  intended  to  secure  the  inventor  in  the  enjoyment  of 


A     KICVIEW.  'J7 

his  ])rivilct(c.  Were  all  men  equally  capable  of  producing,  fewer 
would  be  found  en^a^ed  in  plundeiin*^  in\entions  which  belong  to 
his  neighbor.  Such,  however,  not  being  the  case,  unfortunately  the 
lack  of  inventive  talent  is  in  many  instances  supplied  only  by  the  de- 
sire for  gain,  anil  ingenuit}'  in  attaining  it,  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  real 
machinist. 

"  The  public  mind,  interested  in  the  progress  of  the  arts,  as  fos- 
tered by  the  establishment  of  this  office,  is  now  turned  towards  a 
remedy  of  the  evil;  and  to  the  undersigned  it  seems  but  justice  that 
the  remedy  should  be  apjilied. 

"  Inadequacy  of  protection,  is  what  is  chiefly  complained  of — the 
violation  of  a  right  as  sacred  as  any  personal  possession,  w  ithout  the 
remedy  guaranteed  against  a  petty  larceny.  It  is  manifestly  unjust 
that  the  time  and  means  of  the  inventor  should  be  expended  in  de- 
fending that  which  Government  accords  as  peculiarly  liis  own,  in 
every  instance  where  a  willful  trespasser  is  called  upon  to  respond  in 
damages  for  infringement.  He  is  thus  subjected  to  all  the  horrors  of 
interminable  and  ruinous  litigation;  and,  if  his  assailants  are  more 
fortunate  in  having  the  means  of  attack  than  he  of  defence,  his  case 
is  hopeless,  and  he  may  be  likened,  as  once  were  chancery  clients,  to 
sheep  that,  having  taken  shelter  in  the  hedge,  come  forth  "  i)iteously 
comi)laining,"  leaving  their  fleece  upon  the  bush. 

"  It  may  be  contended  that  all  other  titles  to  property  are  justly 
subject  to  investigation  without  limitation; — and  that  an  exception  in 
this  instance  would  be  a  dei)arture  from  the  well  settled  principles  of 
practice  and  law.  The  argument  might  be  good,  were  all  property 
equally  the  result  of  mental  creation  and  equally  susceptible  of  public 
invasion.  Unlike  a  chaltc',  it  can  be  stolen  by  one,  or  a  thousand,  and 
by  all  at  the  same  time.  Its  ajjpropriation  by  one  interposes  no  ob- 
stacle to  its  larceny  by  another,  and  thus  the  inventor  is  subject  to 
be  plundered  by  every  person  who  chooses  to  violate  his  right.  He 
appeals  to  the  law  for  redress,  and  the  remedy  he  adopts  proves  to 
be  one  of  self-immolation." 

The  foregoing  views,  alike  just  as  the>'  are  to  inventors,  and  hon- 
orable to  the  intelligent  and  independent  minds  so  conversant  with 
the  subject,  must  strike  the  reader  as  peculiarly  applicable  to  this 
case: — where  an  inventor  after  unremitting  toil  ami  privation  for  a 
long  course  of  years, — now  near  a  quarter  of  a  century — has  com- 
pletely succeeded  in  perfecting,  and  introducing  into  general  use  one 
of  the  most  useful  and  valuable  imi)ro\'ements  of  this,  or  indeed 
of  any  age,  and  when  he  might  now  derive  some  advantage  there- 
from in  his  declining  years,  his  motives  and  private  character  are 
ruthlessly  assailed,  his  rights  infringed  on,  and  a  barefaced  attempt 
made  b\'  special  pleading,  insinuations,  and  perversion  of  facts,  to  de- 
prive him  of  his  rights  altogether;  and  we  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of 
the  reader  to  decide,  whether  in  the  language  of  the  Hon.  Edmund 
Burke,  it  is  done  "  by  that  unscrupulous  and  unprincipled  class  of 
persons,  who  make  it  a  practice  wilfully  to  depredate  uf^on  patent 
rights,  and  who   from   the  basely  criminal  character  of  the  offence 

7 


98  A     REVIEW. 

which  they  commit,  are  stigmatized  by  the  application  to  them  of  the 
infamous  epithet  oi pirate." 

There  are,  however,  some  honest  manufacturers— and  we  make  the 
statement  with  both  pride  and  pleasure— who  do  acknowledge  Husscy's 
rights,  without  being  "  sued  and  enjoined  "  by  paying  him  a  very  mod- 
erate fee  for  the  use  of  his  patent;  not  averaging  one  third,  if  one- 
fourth,  of  the  charge  usually  made  by  others. 

As  to  shutting  up  other  manufactories,  or  even  these  "  vast  estab- 
lishments," as  alleged  by  this  "  counsel,"  the  idea  is  just  as  chimerical 
and  absurd  as  the  attempt  would  be  futile.  No  man  of  sane  mind 
would  for  a  single  moment  think  of  such  a  thing.  Such  a  course 
would  be  diametrically  opposed  to  an  inventor's  best  interest.  Nor 
can  any  one  desire  to  interfere  with  their  "  improvements  upon  Hus- 
sey's  patent,"  or  to  prevent  their  realizing  a  "million  of  dollars"  out 
of  it;  but  is  there  even  a  show  of  reason,  right,  or  justice,  that  they 
should  take  his  patent  also,  without  some  equivalent— some  return  for 
the  advantages  it  confers?  We  know  of  no  Law  '' Higher,"  or  Com- 
mon, Moral,  or  Statute,  which  recognizes  such  a  principle,  or  confers 
any  such  right. 

This  learned  "  counsel  "  has  clearly  failed  to  establish  his  position 
hy  four  of  his  laws.  There  is  yet  another  Law— the  Christian  or  Divine 
Law,  which  is  the  best  law  of  all.  He  "  may  know  by  making  the 
proper  enquiries  at  the  proper  places"  what  are  its  provisions.  No 
speeial pleadijig  cTin  mysiMy  \\.— wo  so\:>\\\stry  can  change  its  meaning, 
or  escape  from  its  penalties;  its  enactments  are  of  universal  applica- 
tion, and  as  unalterable  as  the  "  everlasting  Hills."  As  he  appears 
far  from  being  "  familiar  "with  laws  of  Diodern  date,  he  is  perhaps  much 
less  conversant  with  those  of  aneient  origin.  We  commend  these 
"  parties  in  the  State  of  New  York  " — their  "  counsel  "  of  course  in- 
cluded, to  two  sections  particularly,  of  "  Acts  "  passed  about  two  thou- 
sand years  ago;  nor  have  they  yet  been  repealed  to  our  knowledge. 
Indeed,  we  may  find  some  good  '"rules"  established  more  than  //mr 
thousand  ycd^rs  ago;— such  as,  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness 
against  thy  neighbor"—"  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  house 
—thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife,  nor  his  man-servant,  nor 
his  maid-servant,  nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  anything  that  is  thy  neigh- 
bor's. But  to  the  two  sections  of  the  "  Acts  "  passed  Anno  Domini 
31  and  33. 

Sec.  12.  "Therefore,  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men 
should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to^them:  for  this   is   the   law  and  the 

prophets." 

Sec.  20.  "And  he  saith  unto  them,  Whose  ts  this  image  and  super- 
scription? They  say  unto  him,  Cesars.  Then  saith  he  unto  them. 
Render  therefore  unto  Cesar  the  things  which  are  Cesars." 

As  this  "  counsel  "  has  very  considerately  and  kindly  prepared  a 
petition  for  the  patentee,  thinking  no  doubt  he  was  too  "ignorant" 
for  that,  as  well  as  of  the  "  sixty  days  rule,"  we  will  return  the  com- 
pliment.    He  states: 


A     KKVIKW 


'J9 


■'  His  track  thus  being  entirely  covered, 
he  proceeds  with  ecjuai  secrcsy  to  Con- 
gress vvitli  his  petition,  and  his  wretched 
excuse  about  ignorance  of  the  six/y  days' 
rule— but  without  any  excuse  for  his  de- 
lay till  fill  (/tiys  before  the  cx[)iration  of 
his  patent — it  admitted  ot  none — ^and 
prayed  an  extension  by  their  extraordi- 
nary interposition.  His  petition  r^v?// /n' 
i/it'  lii^lit  s/iid  upon  it  hy  the  facts,  is  as 
follows:" 

"  To  the  Honorable  the  United  States 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

"  The  petition  of  Obed  Hussey  respect- 
fully represents: 

"  That  ,-our  petitioner  has,  within  the 
last  six  weeks,  attempted  secretly  to  ob- 
tain an  extension  of  his  ])atent,  in  viola- 
tion of  law,  by  eluding  all  means  of  that 
examination  into  the  facts  which  the  law 
rec|uires — but  has  been  unsuccessful.  He, 
therefore,  prays  that  your  honorable  body 
will  exercise  its  extraordinary  legislative 
power,  to  aid  him  in  this  laudable  under- 
taking. 

"  Your  |)etitioner  would  have  applied 
in  reasonable  time  to  the  proper  tribunal, 
and  submitted  to  the  proper  investiga- 
tions, but  feared  his  case  would  not  bear 
the  light.  Your  honorable  body,  how- 
ever, can  proceed  7cit/uv/t  notice  to  the 
public,  and  your  petitioner  will  thus  be 
screened  from  impertinent  investiga- 
tions." 

"  Hussey's  first  petition  to  Congress 
was  presented  about  6  weeks  after  his 
conversation  with  the  Commissioner 
above  mentioned.  I  am  not  aware  that 
it  was  known  outside  of  the  walls  of  the 
Capitol  by  any  one  but  C.  H.  McCormick. 
— The  committee  of  the  Senate  reported 
favorably  to  the  applicant,  but  tlie  com- 
mittee of  the  House  did  not — and  no  ex- 
tension was  granted." 

Note — In  this  paragraph  there  is  clearly 
an  inteniled  deception.  The  counsel 
knew  perfectly  well,  that  the  Petition 
was  not  acted  on  by  the  Senate  in  1848, 
although  favorably  reported  on;  and  of 
course  the  "Committee  of  the  House" 
could  not  2iZ\.\i-^Ci\\  it,  until  the  bill  was 
passed  by  the  Senate  at  the  first  session 
of  the  present  Congress.  If  the  subse- 
quent paragraph  does  not  prove  this  de- 
signed to  deceive,  it  certainly  does  prove 
that  "if  ignorance  is  bliss,  'tis  folly  to  be 
wise." 


///^/>  jutitoii  "  ;Y(Z///'J'  the  lii^ht  shed 
upon  it  by  the  facts,  is  as  follows:" 

To  the  Honorable  the  United  States 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

The  petition  of  W.  N.  P.  P'itzgerald, 
counsel  for  parties  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  &c.,  iJvic. 

That  your  [letitioners  i)rofess  to  have 
"invested  millions  of  dollars"  in  the 
manufacture  of  machines,  and  are  now 
making  "vast  sums  of  money"  by  the 
sale  of  them. 

We  know  very  well,  and  inded  have 
always  known  that  Mr.  Obed  Hussey's 
invention  does  "  embody  some  of  the  gea- 
eral  features,"  "  embrace  some  of  the 
elements  of  the  patent  sought  to  be  ex- 
tended "to  be  more  explicit,  it  certain- 
ly does  "  embrace  a  sini;le  Jeature  "  in 
the  "  cutters  "  used  in  our  machines,  that 
we  cannot  do  without;  for  we  never 
could  invent  anything  ourselves. 

We  are  alsowell  advised  that  Mr.  Hus- 
sey has  devoted  many  years  to  perfect 
and  introduce  his  machines  into  use; — 
just  in  time  for  us  to  make  money  bv  his  in- 
vention— and  although  he  has  made  but 
little  by  it  himself,  he  "  is  now  a  man  ad- 
vanced in  years,  "  and  you  know  that 
such  a 

"  .Man  wants  but  little  here  below. 
Nor  wants  that  little  long;  " 
and  as  your  petitioner  are  young  in  years, 
and  in  this  business,  and  greatly  desire 
to  "become  speedily  rich,"  they  there- 
fore pray  "  your  honoral)le  body  will  ex- 
ercise its  extraordinary  legislative  power 
to  aid  them  in  their  laudable  uiulertak- 
ing."  Your  petitioners  would  hold  out 
the  idea  to  Congress,  and  to  the  "inno- 
cent public,"  that  it  is  solely  and  exclu- 
si7'ely  for  the  benefit  of  the  Farmer  and 
for  the  "public  good"  that  they  have 
erected  these  "  vast  establishments,"  and 
"  have  \J>erhaps]  invested  their  entire 
means." 

Again,  "be  it  remembered,"  that  said 
Hussey  "  has  become  the  cats-paw  of  a 
more  designing  and  grasping  man."  who 
is  very  adroit  "in  pulling  the  wires;" 
and  also  that  some  others  have  made 
large  fortunes  by  infringing  on  Hussey's 
patent  -aiul  which  :i'('  are  striving  to  lio, 
without  paying  him  a  single  dollar  as 
'/>lac/:  mail :'  and  it  Wduiii  he  gross  injus- 
tice to  your  petitioners  not  to  allow  them 
the  same,  and  an  equal  privilege.  We 
do  not  like  to  pay  any  ourselves,  but  con- 
sider it  perfectly  right  and  fair  to  levy 
"  black  mail"  on  others,  who  infringe  on 
our  "improvement  on  Hussey's  patent." 
Our  motto,  as  you  canmn  fail  to  perceive, 
is  r\o\.  more  Just  x.\\;\n  fatriotie  :  "millions 
for  defence,  not  a  cent  for  tribute." 


100 


A    REVIEW. 


In  the  identical  language  of  tlii.s  counsel,  we  now  add,  "If  these 
circumstances," — i.  e.,  plain  honest  statement  of  facts,  and  proof,  with 
the  simple  questions  and  unavoidable  answers  that  must  be  given — 
*'  are  not  sufficient  to  establish  my  [our]  position,  more  would  be 
equally  ineffectual!  " 

We  think  enough  has  been  shown  to  convince  every  Member  of 
Congress — nay,  every  honest  hearted  and  right'  minded  F"armer  and 
Mechanic  in  the  country  who  may  chance  to  see  these  pages,  that 
Obed  Hussey's  claim  is  an  honest  and  a  iust  one.  Nor  do  we  think 
any  disinterested  person  can  read  these  most  unprovoked  and  unwar- 
rantable charges  against  the  character  and  claims  of  a  worthy  and 
unassuming  citizen  without  some  feeling  of  indignation.  Have  we 
really  arrived  at  this  state  of  "  progress?  " — that  an  honest  mechanic 
of  the  country— one  who  has  conferred  more  solid  advantages  on  his 
fellow  man  at  home,  more  fame  and  renown  upon  his  country 
abroad,  than  all  the  Lobby-Lawyers  that  ever  did,  or  ever  will 
exist  to  beset  the  Halls  of  Legislation,  backed  too,  by  the  assign- 
ees of  another  poor  man's  Patent — cannot  apply  to  Congress  for 
sheer  justice,  but  his  private  character  is  aspersed,  his  motives  im- 
pugned, and  his  rights  sought  to  be  trampled  under  foot?  and  by  a 
few  capitalists  who  owe  their  prosperity  solely  to  the  inventive 
genius  and  talents  of  this  very  man.  It  is  an  outrage  on  justice,  and 
every  principle  of  honorable  and  fair  dealing. 

But  to  the  sense  of  justice  of  Congress,  and  to  public  opinion, 
which  rarely  fails  to  arrive  at  right  and  just  conclusions,  we  fearlessly 
and  confidently  leave  the  decision  of  the  whole  question.  That  it  will 
be  rightly  decided,  we  cannot  entertain  a  doubt. 


.^K 


FiTst  American  Reaper— Huxley.  lOMi 

,f3  8 


Notary  Publics  Certificate. 


state  of  miinois, 

County  of  Du  Pace.       ) 


-  ss. 


I.  JAY  P.  SMITH,  a  NOTARY  PUBLIC  in  and  for  the  County  and 
State  aforesaid,  DO  HEREBY  CERTIFY  that  the  foregoing,  carefully  read 
by  me.  is  a  true  and  complete  and  correct  copy  of  the  pamphlets  entitled 
••A  Brief  Narrative  of  the  Invention  of  Reaping  Machines;"  "Hussey's  Reaping 
and  Mowing  Machines  in  England."  and  a  •*  Review  of  the  Pamphlet  of 
W.  N.  P.  Fitzgerald.  In  opposition  to  the  Extension  of  The  Patent  of 
Obed  Hussey,"  bearing  the  dates  1854  and  1855  respectively,  on  the  title  pages. 


IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF.  I  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  NOTARIAL 
SEAL,  this   19th  day  of  March.  A.  D.  1897. 

JAY  P.  SMITH.    . 


MisHAWAKA,  Indiana,  March  28,    1897 

John  F.  Steward,  Esq., 

Chicago,  111.  V 

Dear  Sir :  Yours  of  25th  Inst,  has  been  received.  Edward  Stabler 
was  for  many  years  a  friend  to  whom  I  was  indebted  for  many  friendly  acts. 
I  was  for  25  years  attorney  for  Whitely,  Fassler  &  Kelley,  and  was  therefore 
intimately  acquainted  with '  Reaping  and  Mowing  Machines.  On  that  account 
I  assisted  Edward  Stabler  in  some  patent  matters  in  which  the  estate  of 
Obed  Hussey  was  interested.  Our  conversations  about  Harvesting  Machines 
were  frequent  and  I  know  from  himself,  not  only  the  deep  friendship  he  had 
for  Obed  Hussey,  but  also  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  pamphlets  and  that 
he  had  assisted  Mr.  Hussey  in  many  other  ways.  He  gave  me  the  pamphlets 
when  they  were  already  long  out  of  print  and  rare.  For  that  reason  I  would 
rather  not  part  with  them.  If  they  shall  ever  be  required  for  proof,  they  will 
be  forthcoming,  and  you  will  know  where  to  find  them. 

Respectfully,  • 

R.   D.   O.  "SMITH, 

"P 
V 


'vAkTHPr. 


m 


^'^/C, 

-  ^ 


i  i/t 


iivj  ju- 


I? 


%. 


AUtUNIVERi/A 


:f 


•0%        ^OFCAlll 


) 


\  § 


^^o-mn 


UMIVERJ/A        ,v>.10SANGEL£j>^ 


\ 


/A 


5 


i  AC  iiirci 


JAIN 


^[\m 


jj 


% 


i 


■^CAll 


3;      ■==     I 


.:%?  ^. 


•5^< 


.^•lOSAN 
r     -r     o 


-n         Uj 
^V^  -7//mi-i.l 


,^^OFCAllF0/?/(>^       ^OFCAIIFOft^ 


^     s 


.^^      ^ 


o 


49  uivM?in  Tv"^^'       /(^AyvaaniN^ 


XWEUNIVEKi'/A 


o 
<rjl30NVS01^ 


^ME  UNIVERSE 


'J- 


o 


<ril30NVS01'^ 


<\MLIBRARYar^ 


^^vlUS>\N'CElfj> 


r 

"V/idiAINii^^V ' 
^^^l■llBRARYQ/^ 


^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^.OFCAilF0%^ 


%Aavaaii^^ 


^    -^. 


v^ 


^l' 


f  I'OIMLT/. 


in<:.\\.irnr, 


iV' 


^V,f 


If  I  kiivruf/^ 


''J.,...-..W, 


UK,  Vk'i  ri  f  r 


■v/ja3AINiVi\iN 


^FCAIIF0% 


L  006  212  660  2 


Oa 


^ 


^  <^ 


-^<!/ojiiv: 


UCSOUTHti 


AA    000  724  938    b 


^1    15    %^ 


^^WE  UNIVERS/^       ^VV0SANCEI% 


^ 


'^<!/0JllV3J0-^  %13'JNYSOl^^        '^/^a3AINn]WV 


sr 


^X^EUfJIVERSy/; 


9-       iV^ 


^(?Aavaaii^v^'       '''iiiJONVsoi^''      %a3AiNn-3Wv 


vvf.imDArnv*.         .vvVIIRRArv/";.- 


ijllVJJO 


i\F  r.MiPnOi.  aF TAIIFriC'y, 


>5^ 


>&Aavaaii-A^'' 


>- 


^^^^•llBRARY/:)>r^       ^^UIBRARYQt^         ^^WEll^JIVERS•//^        ^vlOSAVCElfj)^ 


L 


/7t/ii/-»  I  i-ivj-\   ir\-V»* 


-o\lUBRARYQr^ 

i  u^l 


^vlOSANCElfX^  ^.OFCAl: 


^urr^ivFPr/ 


<  ' 


# 


^ 


^ 


